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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description adds real value on top by disclosing that entity matches are heuristic and must not be treated as proof of ownership or authorization. It also states the $0.01 cost, which is not encoded in any structured field.

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 sentences plus a short cost statement, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every clause carries information an agent needs: outputs, caveat, and price.

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 must convey return shape, and it does so at a high level (page metadata, candidate entities, LEI, status) while flagging the reliability caveat. The only meaningful omission for a two-parameter tool is any explanation of what limit controls.

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 50%: the domain parameter is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces that it must be a public company hostname. The limit parameter (default 5, max 20) is described in neither the schema nor the description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the concrete outputs: page metadata plus candidate GLEIF legal entities with LEI and status. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_page_metadata, which overlaps on the 'page metadata' portion of the return.

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 'leads for due diligence' framing implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives such as get_page_metadata for plain metadata fetches, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from context.

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