get_presences_by_user_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation ('get presence') and the input format. It does not disclose any limits on the number of GUIDs, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. For a simple read operation this is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded first, and the parameter format is stated directly after. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the input format is fully described. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return shape or any constraints on the number of user IDs. For a minimal presence lookup, this is adequate but leaves minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description adds meaningful semantics to the otherwise bare user_ids parameter by specifying 'comma-separated GUIDs,' which tells the agent exactly how to format the input. This is a valuable addition beyond the schema, though it stops short of providing an example.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get presence for multiple users.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_my_presence and get_user_presence, since 'multiple users' explicitly signals batch behavior. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus get_user_presence or get_my_presence. The description implies multi-user use but does not explicitly say to use this only for multiple users or mention any alternatives. This leaves selection to inference from the tool name alone.

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