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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers substantially: exact-match-only behavior, unknown names returning 'unresolved' as a valid answer, read-only semantics ('Free to read'), and data provenance (dated quotes requiring page and read-date citation). The licensing restrictions add contextual depth. The main gap is that the description never discloses what a successful resolution actually returns.

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 first two sentences front-load purpose and matching behavior effectively. But the final three sentences are dense with licensing/provenance content, with some redundancy in the restriction language, and 'A key is one reader's own use' is cryptic. It is informative but slightly over-long for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 tool with no annotations, the description covers matching behavior, the unresolved case, provenance, and usage restrictions. However, with no output schema present, it never explains what a successful resolution returns, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding how to interpret the result. Some of the licensing prose is also peripheral to correct invocation.

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% — the schema already documents the parameter as 'A name as printed on a list, or an alias.' The description adds genuine value by stating the exact-match requirement and the 'never a guess' rule, which tells an agent not to pass partial, fuzzy, or approximate inputs. This meaningfully exceeds the schema-only baseline.

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 opening sentence states a specific purpose: 'What company a name on a list refers to' — a clear verb-resource pairing (resolve a name to a company identity) that distinguishes it from the temporal/relationship siblings (as_of, changes, changes_across, in_chain). However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely-related named_by sibling, so full differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies the use case — resolving a name on a list to a company — and states the matching constraint ('Exact match only, never a guess'). But it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, names no sibling tool, and offers no exclusions. The 'never a guess' line is more behavioral than routing guidance.

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