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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that by naming the returned fields (legal name, jurisdiction, status, city/country) and disclosing the ranking behavior and match_score. It stops short of describing pagination or what an empty result looks like, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return contents and ranking detail; there is essentially no filler. The ranking parenthetical is slightly dense but each clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

This is a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the result fields, the ordering rule, and the downstream hand-off to lei_lookup. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly, or to interpret the ordered candidate list, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how the name parameter is interpreted — exact match first, then prefix matches, then names containing the words — with a concrete example (name=telefonica). That ranking semantics is not derivable from the schema, which merely calls it "Legal entity name to search for"; the limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 ("Search the GLEIF global LEI register by legal-entity name (full-text)") plus the return contents, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling lei_lookup by positioning itself as the name-to-LEI resolution step. An agent can distinguish it from lei_lookup and companies_search without opening either schema.

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 an explicit sequencing rule — "use to resolve a company name to its LEI before lei_lookup" — which names the alternative and the condition that selects it (you have a name, not an LEI). The implied inverse (if you already hold an LEI, skip this) is clear enough that no inference is required about which tool to pick.

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