verify_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement and parallel execution, adding some context. However, it omits details about response structure, error handling, and whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and limit, followed by requirements and behavior. Every sentence is informative with no fluff 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does ('returns safety verdict for each contract'). It covers the key aspects of a batch verification tool, though it lacks details on error handling and verdict format, leaving room for improvement.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 50-contract limit already stated in the schema and the API key requirement, but it adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema describes.

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's function: to verify contracts in batch, up to 50 at a time. It uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a resource ('contracts') and highlights the batch aspect, distinguishing it from the sibling verify_contract tool.

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 usage when multiple contracts need verification ('up to 50 at once'), which provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the batch context makes the intended use case obvious.

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