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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that results include each name with its source, which is useful but not extensive. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or what happens when no aliases exist, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the included name types. It is concise and every phrase earns its place, though it could be slightly more explicit about usage context.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter, a complete output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like get_record or list_nodes, but the tool's simplicity and schema coverage keep the gap small.

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%, so the schema already documents the identifier parameter thoroughly, including accepted forms (record id, LEI, legal name, alias, register identifier) and case-insensitivity. The description adds the semantic context that the identifier refers to 'one identifier' and that aliases are names carried by the record, but it does not add much 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('aliases for a record identifier'), and clarifies the scope by enumerating the kinds of names included (legal name, register names, other names) with their sources. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_record or list_nodes, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 usage: call this when you need all names associated with a record identifier. It does not explicitly state when to use an alternative, such as get_record for a single canonical record or list_nodes for broader traversal. The identifier parameter description adds context about what can be passed, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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