Bulk Get Threats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: lean vs full row semantics, the reason a full dossier caps at 3 (~68 KB), and the guarantee that overflow is named in `deferred_ids` and 'never silently dropped.' The `missing` behavior for unresolvable IDs is also disclosed.

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, each earning its place: core capability first, then default-payload detail, then full mode, then cross-reference. No filler or repeated schema text; the most important constraint (20 IDs per call) is front-loaded.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs to invoke correctly and interpret the result: the batch cap, both detail modes, overflow handling, missing IDs, and a pointer to the single-ID fallback. An output schema is present for return fields, so the description's grounding from `count`/`missing`/`deferred_ids` is ample.

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%, so the baseline is 3; both parameters are already documented, including the detail enum and max 20 on threat_ids. The description adds marginal value by explaining response-related semantics: what `count` counts, what `missing` contains, and why detail='summary' is what makes 20 fit in one response.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource, and constraint: 'Fetch up to 20 threats by ID in one call.' This cleanly separates it from single-ID get_threat, search-based search_threats, and get_recent_threats without needing to read any 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 names the alternative tool with its use case: 'Drill into any row with get_threat(id).' It also gives conditions for choosing the detail mode ('detail="summary" default, all 20 fit' vs 'detail="full"... max 3 ids per call'), so an agent knows when and how to call rather than guessing.

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