Search Bolagsanalys figures for many companies (batch)

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

Although `readOnlyHint` is already true, the description adds the explicit 'read-only — never writes' guarantee, the 50-company cap with rejection behavior, the packed quarter format (not calendar dates), and the fact that rows retain `companyId` and `parameterCode`. These exceed what annotations provide and are not contradictory.

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 dense but entirely purposeful. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of guidance (read-only, batch scope, alternatives, quarter format, cap, return envelope). It is front-loaded with the most important facts and contains no filler.

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's complexity (10 params, batch semantics), the description covers all high-stakes points: subset vs all, quarter encoding, cap, and response envelope. The presence of an output schema eliminates the need to document return fields, and the description leverages the sibling reference to complete the context.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: explains packed quarter format for `quarterId`/`fromDate`/`toDate`, clarifies the 50-item limit on `companyIds`, and references the return envelope of the sibling tool. This is more than just repeating schema definitions.

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 action ('Fetch quarterly figures'), the specific resource ('a SPECIFIC SET of companies in one call'), and the mechanism (`companyIds`). It directly distinguishes from the sibling `bolagasanalys_get_data` by contrasting the batch purpose with the all-companies alternative.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('a specific N-company subset') and when not ('to fetch ALL companies instead omit companyId on bolagasanalys_get_data'). It also provides format conventions for quarter bounds, which is essential for correct usage.

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