sanity_check_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses batching and hints at a `data` order, but omits whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and practical differences between grounded and open modes. This is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and batching limit. However, the second sentence about `data` is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place, making the structure less clean than it first appears.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the batching use case and sibling routing. It still leaves the behavioral contract and return shape underspecified; the `data` reference hints at output ordering but is too vague to be complete.

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 schema already documents mode, claims, and context, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics and instead references a `data` list that is not in the schema, which is confusing rather than clarifying.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify up to 50 claims against one shared context in a single call. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling sanity_check, so the agent can distinguish the batch tool from the single-claim tool. The odd `data` sentence adds some confusion but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over one sanity_check per sentence, which gives a clear routing condition for multiple claims. It does not specify when-not or explain mode selection, but the main alternative is named.

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