add_features_batch

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

Annotations include destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context: parallel ingest with a 10-wide semaphore, the three-bucket return breakdown, the fact that 'already_existed' is not a failure, uniform versus auto-detected taxonomy behavior, and expected wall-time for typical batch sizes. It does not explain what 'destructive' means in this context, but the added detail exceeds annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, a bulleted return breakdown, a usage paragraph, a taxonomy note, and a performance estimate. Every sentence provides actionable information; no filler or redundancy. The format is scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 7 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains return bucket semantics, addresses the single-add sibling, provides performance expectations, and clarifies parameter behavior in batch context. The presence of an output schema does not leave gaps because the description enriches its meaning.

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% with good per-parameter descriptions. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: taxonomy fields 'apply uniformly to every ticker in the batch,' heterogeneous batches should leave them unset for auto-detection, and `source` is 'applied uniformly.' It also clarifies `is_asset` override behavior, complementing the schema's static descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Batch-add multiple tickers to the catalog in one call.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling `add_feature` by highlighting batch efficiency and from `create_portfolio` by noting the portfolio-bound alternative. The scope (multiple tickers, one call) is explicit.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you want to register a research universe in the catalog without committing to a portfolio' and contrasts with 'For portfolio-bound bulk imports prefer create_portfolio with auto_add=true.' It also advises when to leave taxonomy fields unset for heterogeneous batches, offering clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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