bulk_atlas_technique_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds concrete behavioral details: rate limits (30/hr Free, 500/hr Pro), per-item next_calls, inherited_tactics flag, and the response structure including status fields. 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then providing specific details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. However, given the complexity, the length is justified.

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 (single parameter, clear bulk operation), the description covers all essential aspects: input constraints, rate limits, output shape, and integration with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the burden on the description.

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% for the only parameter (technique_ids). Description adds value beyond schema by noting case-insensitivity, deduplication, each ID counting toward rate limit, and the max 50 items. This contextual information helps the agent use the parameter correctly.

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's purpose: bulk retrieval of up to 50 ATLAS techniques in one request, distinguishing it from the single-item atlas_technique_lookup sibling. It specifies the input format and use case as a follow-up to atlas_case_study_lookup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (as an efficient alternative to multiple separate calls, especially after a case study lookup) and implies the alternative (atlas_technique_lookup for single calls). No explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.

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