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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: heuristic matching caveats, the 'leads not proof' accuracy warning, and a per-call cost of $0.003. It stops short of describing error behavior or how candidate entities are ranked.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and output, followed by the caveat and the price. No filler, and the most important constraint (leads, not proof) is stated before the cost.

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 does describe the return shape (page metadata, candidate GLEIF entities, LEI, status), which is the main burden. The gaps are the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of any note on how many candidates are returned or ranked.

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 only 50%: domain is documented in the schema, but limit (default 5, max 20) has no description anywhere, and the description says nothing about it or about pagination/result-count behavior. The description therefore does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 (resolve) and resource (public company domain) and enumerates the concrete outputs: page metadata plus candidate GLEIF legal entities with LEI and status. This differentiates it from the overlapping sibling get_page_metadata by making the legal-entity enrichment explicit.

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 clear use context ('leads for due diligence') and a firm limitation ('not proof of ownership or authorization'), plus a cost signal. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer a plain page-metadata call, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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