Get metadata for many galleries

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add operational detail. It does this by disclosing that the server internally splits requests into official 25-item API batches and preserves input order, which impacts result mapping and rate expectations. It does not cover failure or partial-response behavior, but the annotation coverage reduces that burden.

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 two short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: the batch capacity and the server-side batching/order behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant schema duplication.

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 read-only batch metadata tool, the description sufficiently covers capacity, batching, and ordering; the output schema presumably documents the returned metadata. It remains slightly incomplete regarding explicit routing to the single-gallery sibling, but that is a minor gap given the tool name and sibling 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, including site, galleries, item requirements, maxItems, and input-order preservation. The description adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond repeating the count/order; the 25-item batching detail is operationally useful but not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('official metadata') with a clear scope ('up to 500 galleries'). The 'many'/'batch' phrasing and tool title distinguish it from the singular sibling eh_get_gallery_metadata, so an agent can identify the intended scope without opening the schema.

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 batch use through 'up to 500 galleries' and the batch name, and it notes batching behavior useful for understanding API execution. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over eh_get_gallery_metadata for a single gallery or over eh_resolve_gallery_batch, so usage guidance is largely inferred from context.

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