get_uitspraken_bulk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: per-ECLI results with body, metadata, relations, links, and error handling for unpublished/not-found ECLIs. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a public read API the disclosed return and error semantics are valuable.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a concise summary of the return format and error behavior. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably covers return values and error cases. It explains the per-ECLI result and the count limit. It could optionally include a small example, but the provided info is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds context about the result structure (body, metadata, relations, links) but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('multiple Dutch court decisions by ECLI'), and scope ('1–10 ECLIs in one call'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_uitspraak (single) and search_uitspraken (search-based) by emphasizing the bulk-by-ECLI nature.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when fetching multiple court decisions by known ECLI identifiers. It implicitly excludes single-fetch and search scenarios, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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