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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: '1 point per returned record,' which is actionable cost information. However, it says nothing about authentication, result limits, or pagination behavior, so the behavioral picture is only partially covered.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the field list and filters. The catalogue of returned fields is long but earns its place given there is no output schema. Minor redundancy in listing so many fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the tool returns and adds a cost note, which is the key missing structured information. Pagination semantics (start_page/max_items interaction) remain unexplained, but otherwise the definition is sufficient for a 7-param search.

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%, and every one of the 7 parameters (including the status/reg_status/category enums) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description's restatement of filters (active/inactive LEI, exact LEI status, entity category, country) adds little beyond that, so the baseline 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: 'Search the Global LEI Index by company name or LEI code,' and enumerates the returned fields (LEI, name, status, address, legal form, jurisdiction, etc.). It is clearly a company-search tool, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from close siblings like run_gleif_companies or run_lei_lookup_companies_search.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives, despite several near-identical sibling tools (run_gleif_companies, run_lei_lookup_companies_search). The keyword-based nature is implied by the phrase 'by company name or LEI code,' but nothing tells the agent when this tool beats those siblings.

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