get_parties

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds significant behavioral context: the native multi-id endpoint for 1-10, transparent parallel fan-out for 11-50, and that results are merged. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: purpose first, then behavioral details, then usage recommendation. Every sentence contributes essential information without fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, constraints (max 50 IDs) and internal logic. It addresses the complexity of batch fetching and ensures the agent understands how results are returned.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the splitting behavior for the 'ids' parameter and providing an example for 'embed'. It enriches the meaning without redundancy.

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 'Batch-fetch up to 50 parties by ID', specifying the action and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_party' (single) and 'filter_parties' (query-based).

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever Claude has several party IDs to avoid N sequential round trips of get_party', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It also details the transparent splitting behavior for large inputs, guiding correct usage.

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