products_batch_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what happens when some IDs in the batch don't exist. For a batch operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first and could be more efficiently integrated. No unnecessary information is included.

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 batch read tool with 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return format, error conditions, or how this differs from other product retrieval methods. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description only mentions 'idProperty' and vaguely references 'internal ID' (likely mapping to 'inputs.id'). It doesn't explain what 'propertiesWithHistory', 'properties', or the structure of 'inputs' objects mean. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('batch of products'), and specifies two retrieval methods: by internal ID or unique property values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'products_read' (singular read) or 'products_list' (list all), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'products_read' (single product), 'products_list' (list all), or 'products_search' (filtered search). It mentions the 'idProperty' parameter but doesn't explain when batch reading by unique property is preferable to other methods.

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