Bulk Check Companies in Difficulty (FIV)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: compliance errors are returned per orgnr instead of failing the whole call, and the suggestion to check each result's 'error' field. It also mentions quota counting, which is not in annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, batch limit, quota, error handling, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and free of 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: batch size, quota counting, per-item error handling, and use cases. It could optionally describe the output format more explicitly, but the hint about the 'error' field is sufficient for an agent. It is complete for a bulk screening tool.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by reiterating that each orgnr counts against quota (redundant but helpful) and provides usage guidance for the skip_freshness parameter (use sparingly, for retrospective screening only).

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 it is a bulk endpoint for portfolio-screening of financially distressed companies per NUES rules. It uses specific verbs ('screening', 'check') and distinguishes itself from the singular sibling tool by emphasizing bulk operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (screening supplier lists, credit-portfolios, EU state-aid eligibility) and mentions the max batch size of 50 orgnr. While it does not explicitly exclude single-company checks, the context with the singular sibling tool implies that use case.

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