Run an approved bounded research batch

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: whole-batch validation before any network call, refusal of account overrides/recursion, stop-on-first-failure, no automatic retry, retention of completed outcomes, and the confirm gate. That is rich operational disclosure an agent needs for a fail-fast batch runner.

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?

Five tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and bound, then failure/confirmation semantics. No filler; every clause carries constraint or behavior information.

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 complex, non-idempotent batch tool with no output schema, the description covers validation, failure handling, retry policy, and confirmation. It could say more about the shape of returned partial results or error signaling, but an agent has enough to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains max_calls as a request bound (not a billing guarantee), the confirm=true requirement for the exact batch, account as a single selected private account that cannot be overridden, and requests as up to 20 explicitly supplied calls. It adds real meaning over the bare schema, though it does not describe the requests item structure (tool/arguments).

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+resource (run a batch of research calls) with clear scope: up to 20 explicitly supplied calls, sequentially, in one selected private account. This is unmistakably distinct from all the single-request sibling tools, so an agent can identify it without inspecting 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?

The description implies the usage context (batched multi-call execution against one account) and states the confirm=true prerequisite, but never explicitly says when to prefer this over issuing the sibling tools individually, nor when not to batch. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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