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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral contract that each item comes back 'as get_article returns it' and that the batch is capped. It does not say what happens if one ref is invalid or if more than 20 are supplied, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the batch capability and followed by the routing guidance. No sentence is wasted.

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?

For a simple read-only batch tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it covers scope, cap, return-shape proxy, and usage. Only error/partial-failure behavior is left unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both `refs` formats and the optional `date`. The description mentions 'up to 20' and hints at points/parts, but adds no format or date guidance beyond the schema — baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource — fetch several articles/points/parts in one call — and immediately frames it as the batch counterpart of `get_article`. An agent can tell it apart from `get_article`, `search_law`, and `related` without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly names the triggering context (reading everything a `search` or `related` returned) and the alternative it replaces (one `get_article` call per item). The single-article exclusion is strongly implied by 'instead of one call per article'.

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