get_multiple_pages

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 what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if it has rate limits, what authentication is required, what happens if some paths don't exist, or what the return format looks like. The examples show parameter usage but don't explain behavior.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and examples follow. The Spanish examples are relevant but could be more concise. Overall, most sentences earn their place, though the structure could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that fetches multiple resources, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the results come in, whether it's paginated, what happens with invalid paths, or any error conditions. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no structured output documentation, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: the examples illustrate how parameters work together (tech with paths array), showing that 'tech' is a technology slug and 'paths' are documentation page paths. However, it doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Obtiene múltiples páginas de documentación a la vez' (gets multiple documentation pages at once). It specifies the verb ('obtiene') and resource ('páginas de documentación'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_page_content' beyond the 'múltiples' aspect. The examples help illustrate the scope but don't provide explicit sibling comparison.

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 some usage context: 'Útil para obtener documentación relacionada en una sola llamada' (useful for getting related documentation in a single call). This implies when to use it (for related pages) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_page_content' for single pages. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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