acc_get_docs_metadata

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns by using 'Batch-read'. Beyond the annotation, the description adds useful behavioral context: it details the exact metadata categories (including review workflows and custom attributes) and notes the batch capability. Since the annotation already establishes safety, the added value is enough for a 4, though it does not go into rate limits or pagination.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence lists what is read and the second gives the use case. No filler or repetition of schema field names in an unstructured way. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given readOnlyHint, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is a simple batch read operation, so no further pitfalls or prerequisites need disclosure. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%: both parameters have clear descriptions (project_id and urns, with note about item vs version URN resolution). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Batch-read document metadata', then enumerates the exact fields returned (title, revision number, process state, review/approval status, custom attribute values). It also calls it 'the daily status-checking tool for a CDE manager', which clearly positions it against sibling tools like acc_get_item or acc_list_reviews.

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 clearly states the primary use case ('daily status-checking tool') and what it returns, giving an agent a good sense of when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead in other scenarios, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., when to use acc_get_item or acc_list_reviews instead).

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