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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet discloses nothing about caching behavior, rate limits, partial-failure handling (e.g., what happens if one of the 20 queries is invalid), or return shape. The caching hint ('force refresh instead of cache') lives only in the schema, not the description.

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 tight sentences with the batch scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining batch return behavior and error/partial-failure semantics, which it omits. Adequate to identify the tool but incomplete for a batch endpoint where partial-failure handling matters.

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 queries and forceRefresh. The description's 'Up to 20 queries' merely restates the schema's maxItems: 20 and adds no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource ('Fetch prices') and scopes it as a batch operation for 'multiple assets/providers in a single request.' This inherently distinguishes it from the singular get_oracle_price sibling, though it does not name 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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over calling get_oracle_price repeatedly or over other batch/aggregate siblings. The only constraint offered is 'Up to 20 queries,' which is a limit rather than usage direction.

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