prove_field_predicates_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it discloses duplicate tuples dropped server-side, whole-batch abort on false predicate with zero on-chain effect, possible PARTIAL_SUCCESS subset, and async behavior returning { jobId, status } to poll via get_job_status. This is thorough and policy-relevant.

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?

Four dense sentences deliver the core purpose, edge cases, failure modes, and async pattern without redundancy. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the batch complexity, partial-success behavior, and absence of an output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers the claim limit, duplicate handling, abort semantics, verification path, and async polling contract. Sibling tools round out the context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds the 8-claim cap and the contentRoot slot trade-off, but does not otherwise enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already explains.

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 opens with 'Batch variant of prove_field_predicate' and specifies 'prove up to 8 field-bound predicates on ONE anchored document in ONE transaction', which clearly states the tool's action, scope, and distinguishes it from the singular sibling prove_field_predicate.

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?

It identifies itself as a batch variant, implying use when multiple predicates are needed, and advises verifying per-claim via verify_predicate_attestation after partial success. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over prove_field_predicate or exclude single-predicate cases, leaving that to inference.

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