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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: cost per distinct citation, duplicate collapsing before pricing, item-level refunds on failure, upper limits of 50 distinct and 500 total citations, and strict refusal of unknown fields. These details meaningfully affect how an agent should invoke and reason about 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 succinct and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured operational details. Each sentence earns its place, though the billing and limit details add length; this is justified because they are decision-relevant.

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?

Covers what the tool does, when to use it, pricing/refund behavior, input limits, and strictness about unknown fields. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. This is complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 documents all three parameters with examples and descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The mention of duplicate collapsing and distinct-citation pricing complements the 'citations' parameter semantics. At 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'The same resolver over a list,' which clearly identifies this as the batch version of resolve_india_citation, and states the resource (India citations) and operation (resolve). This distinguishes it from its singular sibling and from search/listing tools.

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?

Explicitly says this is 'for when you would otherwise loop,' giving agents a clear decision rule to use the batch tool rather than repeatedly calling the singular resolver. Sibling context further reinforces this. It does not need to name the alternative because the guidance is unambiguous.

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