get_assets_by_names

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it delegates literally to get_asset_by_name, inherits its /Game-only fallback scan, still resolves ambiguous names to the first hit, and the load_full_data default is inverted to avoid N synchronous loads. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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-loaded with the batch purpose and the round-trip benefit, followed by inheritance caveats and the alternative. The Returns block is justified because no output schema exists. It is dense and slightly run-on, but essentially every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does with a full Returns shape (requested_count plus per-entry fields). Combined with the inherited behavior notes and the alternative tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains what each returned entry looks like when found versus the error that stopped it, and gives the operational rationale for the inverted load_full_data default. It stops short of detailing per-parameter syntax, but the schema already carries that.

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+resource with scope: 'Batch variant of get_asset_by_name: resolve N asset names in ONE round-trip'. It explicitly positions itself against the single-asset sibling (get_asset_by_name) and against get_assets_metadata_batch, so an agent can distinguish it from all nearby tools without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (N names in one round-trip instead of N calls) and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition: 'Use get_assets_metadata_batch when you want registry TAGS rather than identity.' It also tells the agent to check the ambiguous_matches field per entry, which is actionable invocation guidance.

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