search_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: per-identifier results retain subjects or an API error, only successful empty entries land in 'unmatched', and count is entries not taxpayers. This pre-empts the most likely misreading of the response. It says nothing about auth or rate/latency behavior for a 30-item batch, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Compact and front-loaded — the core action and limit land in the first sentence, with response semantics in a tight trailing block. Minor deduction for the unrendered 'YYYY-MM-DD' template token, which reads as a leftover placeholder rather than deliberate wording.

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 3-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials the structured fields omit: identifier count limit, id_type values, and return-shape semantics. It is missing only what 'date' means and any statement about partial-failure handling beyond 'API error' being retained per entry.

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 and largely does: it enumerates id_type values (nip, regon, bank_account) that are absent from the schema's free-form string, and states the 1–30 bound on the identifiers array. The date parameter is only gestured at via 'on YYYY-MM-DD', which clarifies format but not what the date selects (snapshot vs. registration date).

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 states a specific verb and scope: 'Look up 1–30 identifiers in one request,' which distinguishes it from the single-identifier siblings (search_by_nip, search_by_regon, search_by_bank_account) by breadth. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 '1–30 identifiers in one request' framing implies bulk use and the id_type enumeration implies mixed-identifier use, but there is no explicit 'use search_by_nip instead when you have one identifier' or exclusion guidance. The agent must infer the boundary from the siblings' names.

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