bulk_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: a hard cap of 500 queries, one result per query, and the accepted query syntaxes. It does not cover what happens on partial failure, whether queries are matched sequentially or in parallel, or any rate/latency expectations, and include_parents behavior is left entirely opaque.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the batch capability and its limit lead, followed by the input grammar and the output cardinality. Every clause carries information an agent needs to construct a call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and 'one result per query' is enough there. The gaps are the unexplained include_parents parameter and the absence of any routing signal versus lookup_company/lookup_lei, which an agent choosing among three similarly named tools would benefit from.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so well for 'queries' by specifying both accepted forms (raw LEI, or 'Legal name | CC' with optional ISO-2 country) and giving concrete examples. However, 'include_parents' (boolean, default true) is never explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up companies') plus the defining batch scope ('up to 500 ... in one run'), which separates it from the single-entity siblings lookup_company and lookup_lei. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 'up to 500 in one run' phrasing implies the tool is for batch lookups while the siblings handle single entities, but no when-to-use condition or alternative is named. There is no guidance on what to do for a single company or on failure behavior for partially invalid query lists.

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