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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail by noting 'ranked' results and specific evidence categories (identity, registration, mapped-identifier, relationship-availability), which goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, search criteria, and output nature. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 complete schema descriptions, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. It could mention how to combine query parameters (e.g., LEI vs name) or the meaning of 'relationship-availability', but these are minor gaps given the structured context.

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% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description only restates that search is by LEI or legal name, which the schema already conveys. No additional semantic value is added 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('official GLEIF Global LEI Index') and scope ('by exact LEI or legal name'). It mentions ranked evidence types, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like OFAC or SEC searches.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when searching for LEI-related legal entity evidence). It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the resource specificity makes its use case obvious relative to siblings.

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