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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the batch size limit, which is already present as maxItems=50 in the schema, so it contributes little genuinely new behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope and constraint stated immediately. No filler or redundant clauses.

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?

With 6 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the boolean section selectors and what the uuids must reference. As written it leaves the agent guessing about most of the input surface.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters. The description names 'uuids' and alludes to selectable result sections ('selected result sections'), loosely covering the boolean flags (intros, titles, article, summary, transcripts), but gives no meaning for each flag or their defaults.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('selected result sections') scoped to Enterprise uuids, and the phrase 'at once' implies this is a batch fetch versus the singleton-sounding sibling enterprise_get_result. It stops short of naming or contrasting that sibling explicitly.

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 'up to 50 ... at once' phrasing hints at batch usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer enterprise_get_result or enterprise_export instead. The agent must infer the routing decision from the name alone.

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