Kooperativa: bulk enrich people

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that unmatched identifiers are silently skipped and counted in not_found, and that each array item must contain exactly one identifier. It stops short of explaining the full response shape or any side effects of enrichment, but the key edge-case behavior is well covered.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The most important fact (batch size and single-call behavior) is front-loaded, followed by the payload requirement and the unmatched-identifier handling. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation details: batch limit, identifier selection, and partial-failure behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not describing what a successful response contains beyond not_found, but it is strong enough for an agent to 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already says about the profiles array and the exactly-one-identifier rule. It adds a small amount of semantic value by clarifying behavior around unmatched identifiers, but it does not provide format examples or additional parameter context beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('enrich'), resource ('profiles'), and batch scope ('up to 100 profiles in a single call'). This distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool kooperativa_enrich_person, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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 implies bulk usage ('up to 100 profiles in a single call') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus kooperativa_enrich_person or other people-related siblings. There is no mention of when not to use it or which alternative to prefer for a single profile.

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