contacts_batch_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 200-item cap and that results come in one round trip, implying a read operation, but says nothing about partial-failure behavior (unknown/invalid resourceNames), ordering of results, or required auth/account context — meaningful gaps for a batch tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentences with the scale limit and the sibling comparison given first, and no filler. The 'dedup residue step' framing is slightly niche but adds usable precision rather than padding.

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 two-parameter batch read with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the core call (key, limit, batch rationale) but omits the account parameter, return/ordering semantics, and missing-key handling. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to predict results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies the resource_names parameter (format is resourceName, max 200 items) but never explains the required `account` parameter or its expected format, leaving half the inputs undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb and resource (fetch many contacts), the addressing key (resourceName), a hard limit (up to 200 per call), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling contact_get. An agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs from single-fetch and list/search siblings.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: use it instead of N contact_get calls when re-hydrating a known set of resourceNames, with a concrete motivating scenario (dedup residue). It lacks an explicit when-not (e.g., when only one contact, or when you need search/filtering), but the batch-vs-single distinction is unambiguous.

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