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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fuzzy' matching, which hints at approximate matching behavior, but doesn't disclose rate limits, result limits, whether the input is case-sensitive, or what happens with no matches. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

The description is a single concise line that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and not padded, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema but no parameter documentation and no annotations. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent: it doesn't explain the input format, the nature of the fuzzy matching, or how results are structured. For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'q' parameter beyond the tool's general purpose. The schema shows a single optional string parameter with a default, but the description doesn't clarify what 'q' should contain (e.g., full legal name, partial name, country filter). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb and resource: 'GLEIF fuzzy legal-entity name → LEI codes'. This clearly indicates the tool maps a fuzzy legal-entity name to LEI codes, which is distinct from the sibling 'lei' tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or elaborate on the exact input format, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lei' or 'orgname'. It implies usage for fuzzy name matching but doesn't state prerequisites, expected input format, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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