gmb_info_categories_batchget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds only input constraints (language, GConcept IDs) and does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or response format. Given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, and every word adds value. No wasted content.

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?

Despite good annotations and full schema coverage, the description does not clarify which of the 8 parameters are required (schema descriptions mark some as 'Required' but the required array is empty). It also does not mention alternative tools or when to use this over list. This leaves ambiguity for an agent invoking a batchGet with many parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'language and GConcept ids' which are already fully documented in the schema for languageCode and names. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 returns a list of business categories for given language and GConcept IDs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling gmb_info_categories_list, but the batchGet-with-IDs scope is evident.

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 language and GConcept IDs are available, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., gmb_info_categories_list) or state when not to use this tool. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.

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