resolve_company_batch

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses batch size limit (max 200), required fields (client_ref, at least one identifying field), and behavior on ambiguity (needs_review status). However, it omits error handling, authentication needs, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences pack purpose, limits, requirements, and behavior. No redundant words, front-loaded with key 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?

For a batch tool with nested fields and no output schema, the description covers input requirements and response status. It lacks output structure details (e.g., how client_ref maps to results), but given schema coverage and parameter descriptions, it is nearly sufficient.

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%, but the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'at least one identifying field' is required, and mentions the min_confidence parameter implicitly. This helps agents understand valid usage patterns.

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: 'Resolve multiple companies to AnchorIDs in a single call (max 200).' It specifies the verb 'resolve', the resource 'companies to AnchorIDs', and distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_company (single) and resolve_person_batch.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Each item needs a client_ref for correlation and at least one identifying field. Ambiguous matches return status needs_review with candidate AnchorIDs.' It implies when to use the tool (multiple companies) but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.

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