Bulk Company Risk Scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: quota consumption ('Each orgnr counts as one unit against your quota'), per-item error handling ('Compliance-gates ... are returned per orgnr ... check each result's error field'), and output structure ('component breakdown'). This significantly enhances understanding of how the tool behaves in bulk and partial-failure scenarios.

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 well-organized: a single sentence establishes what the tool does, followed by a second sentence covering quota, compliance gates, and use cases. Every sentence adds substantive information without 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 all key aspects: the purpose, the input constraints, the output scale and components, the quota behavior, the per-item error handling, and the intended use cases. With annotations and an output schema present, this description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, as the single parameter `orgnrs` is fully documented with format, min/max items, and quota impact. The description repeats this info ('up to 50 Norwegian companies') but does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it is a bulk endpoint for portfolio-screening of risk scores for up to 50 Norwegian companies, with specific output details (0-100 scale, named levels, component breakdown). It distinguishes itself from the singular risk score tool by emphasizing the bulk nature and scale.

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 lists use cases: 'credit-decision screening, supplier-portfolio review, and KYC risk triage at scale.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or one-off exclusions, but the bulk context implies it is for multiple companies, and the sibling tool firmaradar_get_risk_score is available for single queries. This provides clear context without formal exclusions.

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