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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: name unification across scripts, subsidiary resolution, and returning up to 5 candidates with confidence and market footprint. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any authorization requirements, though as a search tool this is implied. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond what the name alone suggests.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does and its primacy, the second explains unique behavior and output format. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it explains the core function, the normalization behavior, the return format (up to 5 candidates with confidence and footprint), and contrasts with a generic web search. This is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it, especially given the high schema coverage.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (name, country) with clear descriptions, yielding 100% coverage. The description adds meaning to the 'name' parameter by explaining that it supports spelling variants and scripts, which is not in the schema. It does not add detail to 'country', but the schema already explains its usage. This goes beyond the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the tool resolves a company name to a Meridian manufacturer entity and positions it as the entry point for all other tools, distinguishing it from siblings like classify_device or get_registrations that focus on other aspects. The verb 'resolve' plus the resource (manufacturer entity) makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says it is 'the entry point for every other tool,' signaling when to use it first. It also contrasts with a plain web search by explaining that a web search cannot unify names across scripts, providing a clear when-not scenario and rationale for using this tool instead of generic search.

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