Bulk Company Risk Scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral details: each orgnr counts against quota, compliance gates (ENK/NUF blocking, customer-confirmation, extension disabled) are returned per orgnr in the result's error field rather than failing the whole call. This explains error handling and quota impact beyond what annotations provide, and no contradictions are present.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, usage, quota, compliance gates, and error handling. Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the key purpose first. Appropriate length for a bulk endpoint that is not overly complex.

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 tool's complexity (bulk, quota, compliance errors, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, limits (50 companies), how errors are handled, and what the output contains (risk score with level and component breakdown). No missing critical information for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'orgnrs', describing it as a list of nine-digit Norwegian organization numbers with min/max constraints. The description adds that each orgnr counts towards quota, which is a behavioral note rather than parameter semantics. Since schema already fully describes the parameter, the description adds minimal value here, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states it is a bulk endpoint for portfolio-screening of risk scores for up to 50 Norwegian companies, with a specific verb 'get risk scores bulk' and resource. It specifies the score range (0-100) and named level scale (lav/moderat/høy/kritisk) with component breakdown, distinguishing it from single-company risk score tools like firmaradar_get_risk_score.

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?

Description explicitly lists use cases: credit-decision screening, supplier-portfolio review, and KYC risk triage at scale. It does not directly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but the mention of bulk versus single calls implicitly guides usage. No explicit exclusions, but the context signals and sibling tools provide enough differentiation.

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