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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool auto-detects and routes the identifier and returns resolution.matched_on for confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the caller verify which identifier type was actually used.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The core routing behavior is front-loaded, followed by the accepted identifier types and the key return field. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call context well: accepted inputs, auto-routing behavior, and the confirmation field. It could mention ambiguity handling or what the full resolution response contains, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, the definition is nearly complete.

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%, and the identifier property already enumerates the accepted types with helpful detection hints. The description repeats the same list without adding new semantic detail about formatting, normalization, or conflict resolution. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 states a specific behavior: auto-detect identifier type and route. It lists the accepted identifier types and explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like company_cik, company_domain, and company_ticker by its auto-detection behavior. It is clearly a generic entry point for identifier-based company lookup.

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 when to use this tool: when the identifier type is unknown or mixed. However, it does not explicitly say to prefer this over company_cik, company_domain, company_ticker, or company_lookup_batch when the type is already known. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are named, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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