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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the authorization model ('Any signed-in user can map any group'), that the returned map is anchored at the group's top parent regardless of which entity's LEI is passed, and that 'counts' covers the whole group even when the list is limited. It does not discuss pagination/truncation messaging or response format, so it stops short of fully transparent behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and packed with useful specifics, with no filler sentences. The single long paragraph is dense and slightly run-on in places ('with its parent, level, LEI status...'), but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does so field-by-field (parent, level, status, expiration, managed-by) plus the counts summary and mapUrl. Minor gaps remain around the exact response shape and how truncation by limit is signalled, but an agent can call this correctly from what is provided.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by stating that show='attention' orders results soonest-first and that counts always reflect the whole group regardless of limit. It also explains that the lei input can be any entity in the group, which is technically in the schema but reinforced usefully here.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the entity map of any LEI's corporate group') and immediately bounds the content: top parent, all entities below it, with parent, level, LEI status, expiration date and Global FinReg management. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_lei_record or list_my_leis, which deal with individual records rather than a group hierarchy.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional: use show='attention' to list only lapsed and expiring LEIs, soonest first, and notes mapUrl is for the printable interactive view. It lacks an explicit contrast with get_lei_record ('use this instead of X for group-level data'), so routing between siblings is only implied by scope.

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