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

The description discloses the cost ($0.01 per call) and indicates that the tool returns candidate records, implying a list. However, it does not mention authentication requirements (e.g., api_key) or any potential side effects, which are covered only in the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all key information without redundancy. It directly states the purpose, the return fields, and the cost.

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 that no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of context. It mentions cost and output fields, but omits authentication details and error behavior. The schema covers some of these, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'name' refers to the company legal name, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'api_key'. The schema already provides constraints for name and limit, but the api_key’s description is not echoed here.

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 function: finding Legal Entity Identifiers by company legal name via GLEIF. It also specifies the output as candidate records, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_lei or check_jurisdiction. The mention of 'via GLEIF' gives some context but does not differentiate it from sibling tools.

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