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 return payload and the '5 point per returned record' cost, which is real behavioral context. It omits permission requirements, invalid-LEI/error behavior, and pagination – gaps that matter for a lookup tool with zero 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then enumerates the payload; the cost note is appended efficiently. The field list is long but each item earns its place as return-value information.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description substitutes for the return schema by listing the fields and discloses the cost. The notable gap is routing to the search and relationships siblings, which an agent would need to choose correctly among many company tools.

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%, so the single 'company' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'LEI code or lei-lookup.com link' merely restates that, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond it. 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 ('Get one Legal Entity Identifier record') and enumerates the returned fields, which is clear. It implies differentiation from the search sibling via 'one ... record' but never names the alternative explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The reader must infer that this is the single-record lookup versus run_lei_lookup_companies_search for bulk queries, but the description never states that condition.

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