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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it names the upstream data sources, discloses the four possible outcome states (found/ambiguous/not_found/unknown), and states the key matching guarantee that a near name match is never reported as a match. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results.

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 verification question, then the evidence basis, then the result taxonomy. Dense and largely waste-free, though the final negation list reads as a run-on and could be tightened; nothing is buried, so the cost is small.

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 compensates by enumerating the possible return statuses and the sources behind them, and it bounds scope with explicit non-goals. For a two-parameter, read-only lookup, nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it is missing.

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 both parameters (query, jurisdiction) are already fully documented, including the identifier-exactness rule. The description's reference to 'under which identifier and jurisdiction' adds only framing, not new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Verify a legal entity') and enumerates the exact questions answered: existence, identifier/jurisdiction, and registration currency. The closing scope exclusions ('not advice, not a credit check, not a sanction screen') separate it from adjacent verification-shaped tools, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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 three 'not X' clauses give explicit when-not boundaries, and the cited sources (GLEIF LEI index, US SEC EDGAR) tell the agent what domain of entity this covers. It does not, however, name any sibling tool or state a positive triggering condition beyond the implied verify-an-entity case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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