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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fuzzy company-name search', which implies tolerance for misspellings, but doesn't disclose any other traits like return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether multiple candidates are returned. This is minimal disclosure and insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point, with the purpose front-loaded. No filler words or redundancy. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for basic usage. However, it doesn't mention search nuances like ranking or limit, and given the existence of similar sibling tools, it could benefit from more context. It's adequate but not 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 has one parameter 'q' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that 'q' is the company name to search for, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format, optionality (though the default suggests optional), or any constraints. It provides basic semantics but not comprehensive guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it takes a company name and returns candidate LEIs via a fuzzy search. This is a specific verb (search) and resource (company names to LEIs). It distinguishes from exact lookups by indicating fuzziness, though it doesn't name sibling tools like 'lei' or 'gleif_name' explicitly. The purpose is 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 such as 'lei' or 'gleif_name'. It doesn't mention any exclusions or conditions under which to prefer this tool. The intended use is implied from the purpose, but there's no explicit direction, leaving the agent to infer.

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