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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: a hard cap of 20 matches, null fields being omitted from rows, the tickerStatus field that must be checked before treating a match as live, the literal-substring matching rule, the Oxford Ledge source column allowlist, and the fact that caveats ride in the response's tool_notes.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: identity, return shape, cap, matching rule, caveats, next step all appear in order with little waste. It loses a point for the garbled clause 'plus the other class-share punctuation', which is hard to parse and slightly blunts an otherwise tight passage.

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 return contract and does so fully: {results, count}, the field list per row, and the null-omission rule. Source, matching limits, cap, and caveat location are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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% and the schema already describes the single query parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by specifying what forms actually resolve (name, ticker, digit-only CIK, class-share punctuation) and that substring matching means misspellings fail, which materially changes how an agent should craft the query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a company name, ticker or CIK to its SEC identity.' The identifier-resolution framing cleanly distinguishes it from sibling search tools such as search_bonds, search_news_archive and ol_filing_search, which search different corpora.

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 clear downstream routing ('Once resolved, call get_fundamentals or get_business_summary') and states the matching regime that determines whether the tool will succeed (literal substring; former names and misspellings do NOT resolve). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with other search-class siblings, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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