batch_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which establishes a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond this by stating that it returns the best match for each error, implying a per-input result mapping. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides sufficient additional transparency about the outcome.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output behavior, the second explains when to use the tool. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and return behavior. It does not detail the exact representation of 'best match' or how errors are handled, but these are not critical for this tool's context. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter (error_messages) with type, maxItems, and a clear description. The tool description adds only general phrasing ('Look up multiple error messages at once') that restates the array nature, but does not provide new semantic detail. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Look up multiple error messages at once'. It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('multiple error messages'), and distinguishes from the single-error sibling lookup_error by emphasizing batch processing. The phrase 'Returns the best match for each error' further clarifies the core behavior.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use when debugging a chain of errors or analyzing a log with multiple failures.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for a single error, use lookup_error), so it does not fully meet the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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