batch_search_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses 'bounded concurrency' and 'independent errors', which are important operational traits an agent needs to know (one failed query won't fail the whole batch). This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond mechanical restatement.

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?

One crisp sentence delivers the core purpose plus two behavioral constraints efficiently. No wasted words, well front-loaded. Could arguably be a touch longer to cover parameters, but as written it is tight and readable.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return format needn't be described) and only 2 simple parameters, the description covers the essential surface. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotation context, it leaves unanswered questions about query syntax matching, the meaning of max_results_per_query default, and per-query vs aggregate limits. Adequate but with notable gaps for a batch tool.

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%, and the description adds no parameter detail. It doesn't explain what 'queries' format should be, how max_results_per_query interacts with the 20-query ceiling, or whether results preserve ordering. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but offers nothing beyond the schema's raw field names.

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 the tool batches up to 20 search queries, naming the verb (search), resource (cards), and key constraint (20 queries). It distinguishes reasonably from its sibling search_cards by indicating batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly say it is the batch counterpart to search_cards.

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 conveys use for multiple queries with bounded concurrency and independent errors, implying when to choose batch over singles. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., small query counts) or name search_cards as the single-query alternative, leaving differentiation implied rather than explicit.

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