search_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses response fields (`requested` and `unmatched`) that clarify partial result behavior, and it highlights a KRS-specific quirk where `unmatched` is null. It also mentions the 20-entity limit. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple search tool, though it does not cover error handling or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the limit/type constraint, the allowed id_type values, and the response field explanation. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality, limits, and response fields, including an important edge case (KRS unmatched behavior). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits details like error handling or full response schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists allowed id_type values and states the same-identifier-type requirement. It also implies identifiers is a list of IDs (via 'requested ids') and caps it at 20. This provides essential semantics not in the schema, though it doesn't detail identifier format or normalization rules.

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's function: 'Look up up to 20 entities of the same identifier type in one call.' It uses a specific verb ('look up'), identifies the resource ('entities'), and distinguishes itself from sibling single-entity tools by emphasizing the bulk nature and identifier-type constraint.

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 implies usage for batching multiple lookups of the same identifier type, contrasting with sibling single-entity search tools. It also explicitly restricts id_type to specific values. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of multiple search_by_* calls' or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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