search_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: results are grouped per query and preserve input order, and it is a single MCP round trip. Missing are limits, failure handling, or whether results are fully ordered, but for a batch read tool this is moderate detail.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and then explaining benefit and outcome. Every clause adds value: what it does, how results are returned, and why you would use it.

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 batch read tool, the description covers the main behavior and purpose, but lacks parameter guidance, usage constraints, and output details (no output schema). It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters beyond implying 'queries' are recall queries. It does not clarify the 'kind' enum or 'top_k' semantics, so the description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 runs multiple recall queries in one call and returns results per query, making the batch behavior explicit. It differentiates from single-query tools like search/recall by emphasizing 'several' and 'single MCP round trip', though it does not name specific siblings.

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 you have a list of questions needing recall, citing efficiency via a single round trip. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search or recall.

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