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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the returned field set, which is valuable because there is no output schema, and the word 'Resolve' implies a read-only lookup. But it omits batch semantics for the array input (one result per name or merged?), behavior on unmatched names, and any auth or rate-limit constraints.

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 tight sentences: the capability and covered registries come first, the intended usage follows. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the resolved fields. The remaining gap is batch behavior for the array input, which an agent would need to know before passing multiple company names.

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 schema already documents both 'companies' (with examples) and the optional ISO 'countryCode' filter. The description's field list describes outputs rather than adding parameter meaning, and says nothing about how countryCode narrows or biases the resolution. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('company name') and enumerates exactly what comes back: GLEIF LEI, legal name, country, entity status, SEC EDGAR CIK, last filing date. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings such as lookup_lei (LEI only) or search_sec_filings, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

The second sentence, 'Use to ground company facts before trusting them,' gives genuine usage context for the resolution step. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer this over lookup_lei or search_companies_house_uk, which both address overlapping registry data.

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