batch_check

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that success items keep only lightweight provenance fields and mentions optional cross-host concurrency, which enriches behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing key behaviors) could improve readability.

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?

While the description covers high-level purpose, it omits details about response format (despite an output schema existing), error handling for invalid queries, and how concurrency affects behavior. A batch tool needs more context for reliable use.

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, the description fails to explain the 'queries' format, 'mode' options, or 'concurrency' behavior. The agent gets no help understanding how to structure inputs, leading to likely invocation errors.

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 tool's purpose: checking multiple papers without returning full bodies, focusing on lightweight provenance fields. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like fetch_paper (which returns full bodies) and batch_resolve (resolution vs. check).

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 implies when to use (for quick checks without full bodies) but does not explicitly state when to avoid or compare to siblings like get_cached or has_fulltext. More explicit guidance would improve agent decision-making.

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