get_parties

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the internal behavior: for 11-50 ids the connector splits into 10-id chunks and fans out parallel Capsule requests, with results merged. This level of behavioral detail is valuable and not implied by the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration.

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 batch-fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the limit, explains the round-trip behavior for different id counts, and specifies that results are merged. Combined with readOnly annotations, it gives an agent everything needed to call it 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?

The schema already describes both parameters in full detail (ids with min/max and the chunking behavior; embed with valid tokens). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides – it mostly repeats the chunking information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 opens with 'Batch-fetch up to 50 parties by ID' – a specific verb, resource, and limit. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_party by explaining the batching and parallel fan-out behavior, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this whenever Claude has several party IDs', and names the alternative (get_party) and the problem it avoids (N sequential round trips). It also describes behavior for different ID counts, which helps the agent decide.

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