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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost ($0.02 per call) and the dual nature of the operation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention authentication beyond what the schema says, side effects, rate limits, or what happens when both or neither name/LEI are provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by cost. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content beyond what adds meaning.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must carry more weight. It names the two result dimensions (GLEIF identity and sanctions/exclusion screening) but omits output structure, error behavior, and parameter-requirement edge cases. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for reliable 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that a company can be resolved 'by name or LEI', mapping directly to the name and lei parameters. Yet it does not specify whether at least one is required, whether both can be supplied, or any precedence or matching behavior.

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 ('resolve') and identifies the resource/outcome: a company to its GLEIF legal identity plus sanctions and exclusion screening. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by combining both capabilities in one call, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'in one call' gives clear context that this tool is meant for consolidated KYB resolution and screening, implying it replaces separate calls to resolve_lei and screen_name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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