batch_resolve

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: the use of OpenAlex fallback, auto-detection of patent numbers, the configuration dependency for EPO OPS API, and that the fields parameter only applies to paper results. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful context on how the tool behaves.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a few sentences with key technical details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what identifiers are accepted, how they are routed, and key fallback behavior. It does not explain error handling or partial failures, but those are likely covered in the output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema provides thorough descriptions of both parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds some nuance (e.g., patent numbers are auto-detected, ISBNs require the 'ISBN:' prefix), but much of this is already implied in the schema. Since the schema carries the load, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Resolve a list of paper, patent, or book identifiers to full records.' This is specific with a verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_paper (single) and search_papers by focusing on batch resolution of multiple identifier types.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a list of paper, patent, or book identifiers to resolve. It also explains the underlying sources (S2 batch, OpenAlex, EPO, Open Library), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where a different tool (e.g., get_paper for single IDs) would be more appropriate.

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