Get gallery metadata

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

readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the kind of authoritative data returned (namespaced tags, ratings, file size, torrent metadata, parent/current-version links) and the 1-25 batch limit without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, each earns its place: the first states the operation, scope, and content; the second routes to the preferred alternative. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 batched metadata read with an output schema and thorough annotations, the description covers selection criteria, scope, and key content. The only missing details—site override behavior and exact response shape—are already covered by the input and output schemas. Agents have what they need to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the input schema already documents site, gid, token, and array constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format guidance beyond 'gallery references,' which the schema already expresses. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Get authoritative E-Hentai API metadata for 1-25 gallery references'—a specific verb, resource, and batch scope. It enumerates the metadata categories and explicitly contrasts itself with eh_get_gallery_detail, so an agent can distinguish it among the sibling tools.

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 final sentence is an explicit routing rule: 'Use this for structured metadata and version-chain inputs; use eh_get_gallery_detail for page-level fields, tag strength, or the uploader description.' This directly tells when to choose this tool over the closest alternative and names the alternative explicitly.

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