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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance that resolution maps to a single SEC issuer ('to one SEC issuer') and clarifies the scope of acceptable inputs. It does not contradict any annotation and the additional context is concise and meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second states when to use it, and the third explicitly routes the agent to alternatives for other tasks. The most important distinction is front-loaded, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent resolver with a fully described schema and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what not to use it for, and where to go next. The sibling list and annotations complete the remaining context, so nothing critical 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%, and the single parameter 'identifier' is already documented as 'Ticker, CIK, or exact SEC company name.' The tool description repeats those same identifier types, adding little beyond the schema. There is no additional parameter-level detail like formatting or normalization examples, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a ticker, CIK, or exact company name to one SEC issuer.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly stating it is not for listing filings or searching disclosure text, and names the sibling tools that handle those cases. The purpose is unambiguous and contrasts well with the sibling list.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first when issuer identity is uncertain or before passing a CIK or accession into another FiledProof tool.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Do not use it to list filings or search disclosure text; use filedproof.list_filings or filedproof.search_evidence after identity is resolved.' This fully equips an agent to choose between this and alternatives.

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