norway_batch_get_companies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 2000-item limit, the return structure (summaries and not_found entries), and efficiency comparison. No contradiction with annotations.

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, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and constraint, second provides efficiency rationale. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 has rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers key behavioral aspects (batch limit, return structure, efficiency) without needing to explain basic safety or return values.

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%, with the single parameter 'org_numbers' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying these are Norwegian organization numbers through context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Look up multiple companies at once'), resource ('companies'), and scope ('Norwegian' implied by tool name and sibling context). It distinguishes from sibling 'norway_get_company' by emphasizing batch capability and efficiency.

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 context for when to use this tool ('More efficient than individual lookups') and mentions a practical constraint ('max 2000 org numbers'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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