Run a tool across many LINE OAs

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

The description discloses key behaviors: error isolation per OA, parallel concurrency limits, and return structure. These go beyond the annotations, which already declare read-only and idempotent. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points and an example, but it is slightly verbose. It front-loads the main action and key constraints, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, return format, and example. It is self-contained and aids correct invocation.

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?

The description adds significant context to parameters: it lists supported tools, specifies defaults for oa_ids and parallel, provides concurrency range, and gives an example. Schema description coverage is 75%, but the description compensates fully.

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's purpose: run a read-only line_* tool across multiple OAs in parallel. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's a batch runner for supported read-only tools, and lists those tools explicitly.

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 explains when to use this tool (running read-only tools across many OAs) and includes an example. However, it does not explicitly advise against using it when a single OA result is needed, relying on implicit understanding that individual tools are for single OAs.

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