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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating the report is 'current', includes 'bounded source-specific coverage', and explicitly states what it does NOT provide: 'no identity, linkage, risk, or compliance verdict'. This extra clarity on scope and limitations goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and sources. It is relatively concise but dense with information. It could be slightly more readable by breaking into two sentences, but it earns its content without waste.

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?

Given the tool aggregates data from multiple sources and has an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: sources, coverage boundedness, and what is excluded (no verdicts). It does not detail the output structure, but the output schema presumably handles that. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for legal_name, country_code, and sec_identifier are clear and sufficient. The description adds no additional parameter context.

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 clearly states it retrieves a 'current supplier and organization evidence report' from specific official sources (GLEIF, USAspending, SEC, OFAC). The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'evidence report' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like research.lei-entity-search or research.sec-company-evidence, which are individual source lookups; the differentiation is implied by being a composite report but not stated.

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 mentions 'bounded source-specific coverage for procurement research', which provides a usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use individual source tools or other research tools). No 'when not to use' or 'alternatives' are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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