batch_send

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool provides a per-recipient result summary, going beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loading the core action and outcome. No filler words or redundancy.

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 output schema, the description appropriately hints at the response format (per-recipient summary). The input schema is well-defined. However, for a batch operation, additional context about error handling or partial failures would improve completeness.

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 schema already describes all parameters in detail. The description adds no extra semantic information about parameters beyond 'multiple recipients', which is already evident from the array type. The mention of result summary pertains to output, not input parameters.

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 sends tokens to multiple recipients in one call and returns per-recipient result summaries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_usdc or send_token which handle single transfers.

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 efficiency ('in one call') but does not explicitly state when to prefer batch_send over individual sends or other multi-recipient tools like multi_condition_payment. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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