Fetch Many Records (Batch Read)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that all items are validated before any wire call, that a CONFIG_ERROR enumerates every problem with zero requests sent, and that per-item failures do not abort the batch. The note that article body rows are stored HTML is a real output-shape caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and cap, then the item shape, then failure semantics and the HTML caveat — a sensible ordering. Slightly over-emphatic all-caps and the one clause that duplicates the schema shape cost it the top mark, but there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the cap, validation ordering, partial-failure behavior, and an output encoding caveat. It omits whether results are returned in input order and whether 'fields' projection changes the response shape, which an agent might want for a 20-item batch.

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% and the item shape is fully enumerated in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the shape ('each item is EXACTLY { resource, id, fields? }') rather than adding meaning, though the emphasis on 'EXACTLY' usefully warns against extra keys given additionalProperties=false.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'Fetch up to 20 single records across MIXED resources in ONE call,' which immediately separates it from the single-record sibling hudu_read and from list/search style siblings. The batch semantics (mixed resource types, per-item addressing) are explicit rather than implied.

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 batching intent is implied by 'in ONE call' and the 20-item cap, and 'one failed item never aborts the rest' hints at when this beats sequential reads. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use hudu_read for a single record, hudu_search for criteria-based lookup), so the agent must infer the routing rule.

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