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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two modes (offline checksum/format validation and optional live GLEIF registry lookup), but omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and response characteristics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently covers the purpose, validation scope, and optional live mode.

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 and no annotations, the description should do more to explain return values and error behavior (e.g., boolean result, validation failure details, live registry response). It covers call semantics adequately but leaves meaningful gaps about outcomes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mirrors the schema's explanations for 'lei' and 'live' without adding syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 (Validate) and resource (LEI, ISO 17442), then details the validation scope: checksum, 20-character format, LOU prefix/entity code, and optional live GLEIF verification. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling validators for other identifier standards.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when validating an LEI. The optional live mode is described, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against alternative identifiers, which is especially relevant given the many sibling validate_* tools.

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