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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it resolves LEI, validates VAT and EORI, unifies identifiers, adds parent companies, returns a stable COM- id, and clarifies that the Trust Score is an identity score rather than a credit rating.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and then lists the resolution steps and return value. It is dense but efficient; every clause carries useful information, though the long parenthetical list makes it slightly run-on.

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 composite resolution tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return: a stable COM- id and an identity Trust Score. It is reasonably complete, though it does not describe failure cases, conflict resolution when identifiers disagree, or what happens when the company cannot be resolved.

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 schema already defines lei, name, country, and org_number. The description adds some contextual meaning by mentioning LEI resolution and identifier unification, but it does not explain parameter interactions, required country usage, or fallback behavior when name and org_number are both supplied.

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 and resource: 'Build one golden record for a company,' then enumerates what resolution includes (LEI, VAT/EORI validation, identifier unification, parent companies) and what it returns. It is clearly more than a generic company lookup, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as verify_identifier or search_companies.

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 usage by stating it builds a golden record and unifies identifiers, so an agent can infer this is for canonical company resolution. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like verify_identifier, search_companies, or get_profile.

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