bulk_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the return format (per-part rows, summary counts) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention any authentication/rate-limit requirements, or explain failure modes (e.g., partial results, invalid part numbers). This is a notable gap for a tool that could potentially be misused if assumed non-destructive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core capability and efficiently lists the returned data elements. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, input count, and output structure. It falls short only in not addressing error handling or explicit usage boundaries relative to sibling tools, but the core context needed for correct invocation is present.

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 documents the only parameter ('part_numbers') with min/max and deduplication, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the 200 limit and focusing on outputs, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 checks up to 200 part numbers in one call, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., lookup_part) by emphasizing batch capability and enumerating the per-part row fields and summary counts.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies a batch context, and the up-to-200 limit signals when to prefer this tool over single lookups. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the contrast with sibling tools implicit.

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