get_section_summaries

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the batch shares one index load, and per-id failures are surfaced in-line on the result entry instead of aborting the whole call. That error-isolation contract is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the batch-vs-single distinction lands early. The leading version stamp ('v1.48+ —') occupies the highest-value position with release trivia rather than the tool's purpose, which slightly weakens front-loading.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the batch/single routing, and the error-handling contract. The remaining detail (returned fields, anchor edge cases) lives in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (repo, section_ids) are fully documented there, including ordering, requested_id correlation, and the anchor reference handling. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Resolve metadata for many ids') and immediately positions the tool against a named sibling ('batch version of get_section_summary'), so an agent can distinguish batch from single lookup without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly states the usage context: use this when you have many ids and want a single index load, versus the singular get_section_summary. It does not, however, state any exclusion conditions or cost/limit tradeoffs that would tell an agent when NOT to batch.

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