Bulk Check Companies in Difficulty (FIV)

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses quota unit consumption, per-org error handling ('check each result's error field'), and the max 50 restriction. These are key behavioral details not present in the 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 four sentences and dense with useful information, front-loading the purpose. It avoids fluff, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary because some details repeat schema constraints.

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 the output schema exists, the description correctly focuses on operational context: quota, error handling, and use cases. It is complete for a bulk-check tool with strong annotations and schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the quota semantics but adds little beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 is a bulk endpoint for screening 'foretak i vanskeligheter' (distressed companies), immediately distinguishing it from the singular sibling tool. It specifies the exact domain (NUES rules a-e) and the scope (portfolio screening).

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 explicitly says 'Use for screening supplier lists, credit-portfolios, or EU state-aid eligibility on multiple companies at once', giving clear use cases. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention the singular alternative, but the 'bulk' framing implies the appropriate context.

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