Batch requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey: per-item billing, failed items being free, partial-failure isolation, and ordered one-to-one results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and the limit, then cost, then return shape. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main gaps: size cap, cost model, failure semantics, and result ordering. It does not say how a failed item is represented in the results array (placeholder vs omission), which is the one detail an agent would still need.

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% and the single 'requests' array is fully documented with endpoint/params structure and min/max items, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds the item-level mental model (each element is a standalone request like an account profile) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('run up to 100 data requests in one call') and immediately grounds it with a concrete example ('the profile of 30 accounts'), so the agent knows this is a fan-out wrapper rather than a single-endpoint call. It never names the sibling call_endpoint explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'in one call' plus the 30-accounts example gives a clear condition for using this tool: many requests that would otherwise be issued individually. It stops short of an explicit exclusion ('use call_endpoint for a single request') or a note on when batching is inappropriate.

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