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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source (GLEIF) and result type (legal-entity record), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, how an empty q (the default) is handled, or any constraints on LEI code format. 'Lookup' implies a read, but the detail is thin.

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, front-loaded phrase with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the operation, the source, the record type, and the input key.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and input semantics. However, it omits when-to-use guidance versus gleif_name and any behavioral/edge-case details, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The schema's only parameter, q, has no description (0% coverage), so the description's 'by LEI code' provides the essential meaning: q should contain an LEI code. It does not specify the code format or behavior when q is empty, but it compensates for the schema gap on the core input.

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 ('Lookup') plus a concrete resource ('GLEIF legal-entity record') and a qualifying key ('by LEI code'). It clearly states what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the related sibling gleif_name, so differentiation is inferred from the LEI-code qualifier.

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?

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as gleif_name, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'by LEI code' implies the intended use case but does not articulate it as usage guidance.

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