analyze_assets_performance_batch

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: a forced synchronous load per asset and a conservatively low default cap, plus truncation semantics. It does not mention latency or failure modes when an asset can't be loaded beyond the per-entry error field.

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?

Front-loads purpose and sibling differentiation before the behavioral caveat and return shape. The returns block is lengthy but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the full return contract (counts, truncation flag, per-asset fields including error), plus the synchronous-load behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the description largely restates the cap behavior ('defaults conservatively', entries beyond cap not processed). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('Resolves and analyzes multiple assets by path in one call') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling single-asset tool analyze_asset_performance. An agent can distinguish batch vs single from the first sentence alone.

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?

Explains the selection rationale ('avoids callers looping analyze_asset_performance one-by-one'), which tells the agent to prefer this over repeated single calls. It does not, however, state explicit exclusions or thresholds where the single-asset version would be preferable.

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