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

The annotation set already covers read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the batch size ceiling, the mixed-identifier capability, the single POST transport, and the join-back property of results. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The limit, identifier types, HTTP method, and join-back property are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only batch lookup, the combination of schema and description is sufficient for correct invocation: the input shape is fully specified, safety is covered by annotations, and the join-back note clarifies a key output expectation. It could go further with examples or unresolved-identifier behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already fully constrains the single parameter: an array of {type, value} objects with an enum and min/max items. The description reinforces that identifiers can be mixed and that original inputs are preserved for join-back, but it does not add per-type value format examples. Since there is only one well-schematized parameter, this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly identifies the resource and action: batch lookup of company identifiers. It also names the accepted identifier types and the 50-item limit, which distinguishes it from single-identifier siblings like company_domain, company_ticker, and company_lookup_auto.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when you need to resolve multiple mixed identifiers in one POST. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the batch framing and identifier-type enumeration give an agent sufficient context to select it over single-lookup siblings.

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