Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses partial-failure behavior: one missing/inaccessible ID does not fail the batch, and the consumer should check each entry's 'ok' field. This adds substantial value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, because it tells the agent how to interpret results and handle errors when using the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, error behavior, and routing to an alternative. There is no fluff, it is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is placed after the core behavior but remains easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that annotations declare read-only and open-world hints, and an output schema exists (so return format is documented elsewhere), the description still supplies the remaining critical knowledge: ID list nature, batch failure handling, and when to route to query_database. An agent has enough information to decide when to call and how to code the result handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers the parameters with 100% description coverage, describing both pageIds and mode. The description adds the nuance that the ID list can be mixed pages and database rows, but this is largely already present in the schema via 'Page/row IDs'. Thus the description provides minor extra context but not critical semantic clarification.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get multiple workspace pages or database rows by ID in one call'. It also specifies the target scenario (for a specific, already-known list of IDs), and names exact sources (search_workspace, get_related_pages, get_changes_since), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_page and query_database.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (for a specific, already-known list of IDs) and when not to (for many rows sharing one database, prefer query_database with filters/fields). This gives the agent clear decision criteria, including the rationale that query_database is 'one query, not N lookups'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.