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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data scope ('Current Data tab') and the per-record cost ('5 point per returned record'), which are real behavioral facts beyond the schema. But it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid LEI.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the opening clause, with the returned-field enumeration following. The long field list is verbose but earns its place since no output schema exists. One sentence, no wasted preamble.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description does solid work: it names the source, input formats, returned field groups, and cost. The main remaining gap is guidance on alternatives and failure modes.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description merely restates the same options (LEI code or search.gleif.org link) without adding syntax, format, or validation detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one LEI record from the Global LEI Index') and specifies the input method (LEI code or search.gleif.org link). The emphasis on 'one' record distinguishes it from the search sibling run_gleif_companies_search without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied: it's for retrieving a single record when you already have an LEI code or a search.gleif.org link. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus run_gleif_companies_search or the run_lei_lookup_* alternatives, leaving the routing to inference.

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