check_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only the batch-size ceiling and the one-request behavior, but does not state whether checking is read-only, whether codes are consulted against an external registry, what happens on partial failure, or any result-shape caveats. The 50-code limit mostly restates maxItems from the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the most decision-relevant facts: batch operation, the 50-code limit, and the one-request scope. Every word carries information and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (two params, one enum, output schema present) and the schema covers parameters well. However, with zero annotations, the absence of behavioral detail and the lack of an explicit routing rule against check_marking_code leave a meaningful gap for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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 100%: both 'codes' (min/max items) and 'codeType' (enum with default) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the 50-code cap without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination: batch checking of marking codes, with a hard limit of 50 per request. The 'Пакетная' (batch) qualifier and the explicit count distinguish it from the sibling check_marking_code, which by naming convention implies single-code checking.

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 batch framing implies this tool is for checking multiple codes at once, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. It never names the single-code alternative check_marking_code, nor states conditions such as 'use this for ≤50 codes; use check_marking_code for a single code'.

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