Probe several documents

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: one engine process for the batch, per-path results in order, error envelopes per file, failure isolation, default view and when to switch. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive, and the description does not contradict them.

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 sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads purpose and use cases; the second covers path handling and return behavior; the third gives view guidance. 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 tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and a full output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: batch behavior, order of results, error isolation, and view default. It does not mention budget override or target selection, but those are adequately documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 adds valuable semantic guidance: 'Takes literal paths; expand any glob yourself first' clarifies the paths parameter, and the view default rationale ('inventory rarely needs per-target evidence') adds context beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but the key ones receive useful extra meaning.

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 probes many local documents in one call, listing concrete use cases (inventory a folder, triage a batch, compare files). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'probe' by explicitly being the batch counterpart.

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 explains when to use this tool ('Probe many local documents in one call'), gives practical scenarios, and contrasts cost efficiency ('much cheaper than calling probe once per file'). It also gives guidance on view selection ('pass view: report when it does').

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