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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: identifier resolution to companies, duplicate skipping, and plan-limit enforcement. It stops short of describing what happens on partial failure. Note 'skips duplicates' sits alongside idempotentHint=false but is not a hard contradiction.

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 short sentences, all load-bearing, with the core action front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers input constraints, dedup semantics, and plan limits without saying what is returned or how partial failures are reported. For a single-parameter batch mutation this is nearly complete but leaves that response gap.

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% and the schema documents the KRS/NIP formats, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint the schema lacks — the max 500 array size — plus the resolution behavior, which is real added value.

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+scope: 'Add multiple companies to watchlist in one call.' The batch framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_to_watchlist (singular). An agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

'in one call' plus 'max 500' implies the batch use case and routes away from the singular sibling, and 'respects plan limits' signals a precondition. No explicit exclusion or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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