bulk_atlas_technique_lookup

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

Annotations declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description goes beyond by detailing rate limits (100/hr free, 1000/hr Pro), the summary structure (results per item with status, inherited_tactics, next_calls), and the counting of each ID as a request. No contradictions.

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 concise but information-dense, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: statement of batch capability, usage context, output details, and rate limits. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers input format, output structure with per-item status and features, rate limits, and relationship to sibling tools. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The sole parameter technique_ids is well-documented in the schema with format, max items, and case-insensitivity. The description adds value by clarifying that each ID counts toward the rate limit and referencing that each item's shape matches atlas_technique_lookup. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the extra context moves it to 4.

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 retrieves full records for up to 50 techniques in a single request, explicitly distinguishing it from the single-query sibling atlas_technique_lookup. It also positions it as a follow-up to atlas_case_study_lookup, providing specific usage context.

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 tells when to use this tool (instead of N separate calls, and as follow-up to atlas_case_study_lookup). It also provides rate limit details and indicates the output shape, giving clear guidance on alternatives and usage boundaries.

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