get_library_metadata_by_ids

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds significant behavioral detail: async options create activity records, async flags override synchronous ones, checkFiles implies checkFileAvailability, and asyncAugmentMetadata is ignored for non-admins or multiple items. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 structure is logical: a one-line summary, the endpoint, then a compact parameter block. The repeated phrase 'An activity is created to indicate progress' appears three times, which is mildly redundant, but overall the length is justified by the 21 parameters and the lack of schema descriptions.

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 21-parameter surface area and zero schema descriptions, the tool is largely self-sufficient for invocation: the required ids are identified and all optional flags are documented with behavior and defaults. It is slightly weaker on high-level guidance, such as what base metadata is always returned versus what must be requested via flags.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining every parameter, including defaults and interdependencies. The only notable gap is that 'ids' is described as a comma-separated list while the schema declares it as an array, and augment_count lacks an explicit value range.

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: 'Get a metadata item' followed by 'GET /library/metadata/{ids}'. This clearly identifies the operation as fetching metadata by ID, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_library_metadata_by_id_children or get_library_metadata_by_ids_related.

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?

Usage is implied through the name and endpoint: use this tool when you need a metadata item by IDs. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the many related siblings, nor any 'when-not-to-use' or alternative routing.

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