Fetch Many Records (Batch Read)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: validation of ALL items before any wire request (CONFIG_ERROR naming every problem, zero I/O), per-item partial failure that never aborts the batch, sequential fetching with no fan-out, and no dedup for duplicate {resource,id} pairs. This is exactly the extra context the lower bar for annotated tools rewards.

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?

Purpose and the batch-vs-single framing are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries actionable content (validation order, failure isolation, restrictions). It is dense and heavy on ALL-CAPS emphasis, which slightly hurts scanability, but nothing is redundant.

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 batch read tool with an output schema present and fully-covered parameters, the description covers what the schema and annotations cannot: pre-request validation semantics, per-item failure isolation, resource exclusions, and read-only scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 already carries the 1-20 bounds, the 22-value resource enum, and the integer id constraint, so structure is not the description's job. The description still adds real semantics the schema cannot express — that `fields` is a client-side projection of exact vendor field names validated pre-request against the resource's derived field set, and that ids must be numeric non-negative vendor ids — which materially reduces mis-calls.

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 precise verb and resource — batch fetch of up to 20 single records across mixed resources — and explicitly positions it against siblings by calling itself 'the batch form of the single-record reads' that collapses N sequential hudu_read calls. An agent can distinguish it from hudu_read without opening any 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?

Explicitly names when to use it (consolidating many single-record reads) and when not to: assets, photos, public_photos, uploads, exports and s3_exports are refused pre-request with a pointer at those resources' own read operations, and string identifiers are routed to resolveAny. Both alternatives and exclusions are spelled out.

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