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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it lists the exact statuses (resolved, historical, ambiguous, unknown, over_limit), explains how ambiguous and historical cases are handled (no identity guessed; both old and new securities returned), and guarantees symbols are never silently dropped. It even provides a measured example with resolved counts and percentages, making behavior concrete.

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 detailed but each sentence contributes—starting with a bold headline, then identifiers, then status meanings, then a concrete example. It is longer than strictly necessary, but not wasteful; however, the final measured example is quite verbose and could be shortened without losing key meaning.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the per-symbol return structure (identifiers, issuer keys, rung, status) and the response summary (number and percentage resolved). The gaps are the symbols input format and the purpose of prefer_country, which prevent it from being fully complete.

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 input schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description implies the 'symbols' parameter accepts up to 100 tickers but never specifies the expected format (e.g., delimiter or array-vs-string). The second parameter 'prefer_country' is not mentioned anywhere, leaving its semantics entirely undefined.

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 opens with 'BATCH CROSSWALK — up to 100 symbols resolved in ONE pass' and enumerates the resolved identifiers and statuses, clearly stating it maps a portfolio or watchlist in one call. This differentiates it from single-symbol siblings like tengu_v3_reference_lookup.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as the endpoint for mapping a whole portfolio or watchlist in a single call rather than N calls, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not name the alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.

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