bulk_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses read-only, no auth, never partial/destructive behavior, per-row results, summary counts, and the found:false behavior for unknown or malformed entries. This exceeds typical descriptions.

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 dense sentences deliver all essential information: scope, alternatives, return shape, safety, and edge-case behavior. No word is wasted, and key details are front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description spells out the per-part row fields (status, EOSL date, source URL, page URL) and summary counts. Combined with full parameter documentation and explicit edge-case handling, the tool is fully understood without additional context.

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 covers the parameter thoroughly with min/max items, deduplication, and punctuation tolerance. The description adds only the 'up to 200' and 'in one call' context, which is marginal on top of the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, names the specific resource (part numbers), and immediately distinguishes it from lookup_part for single-part use. The verb 'check' plus the listed return fields leaves no ambiguity about purpose.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for multiple part numbers and names lookup_part as the alternative for a single part. The 200-part limit and read-only/no-auth note also give concrete context for safe use.

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