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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses determinism, checksum/format validation, normalization, auto-detection, cost per call, and paid nature via api_key. It does not describe failure behavior or output format, but covers key operational aspects beyond 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, information-dense sentence that covers purpose, supported types, auto-detection, and cost. It is concise and front-loaded, but the list of types could be seen as verbose; however, it serves a functional purpose. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (15 identifier types, auto-detection, paid API), the description covers key points but lacks details on normalization output format, error handling, and prerequisites beyond api_key. The output schema is absent, so the lack of return structure explanation is a gap for full completeness.

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 low (33%: only api_key has a description; type has enum but no description, value lacks description). The tool's description explains auto-detection for type adds value, but it doesn't explain the expected format of 'value' beyond maxLength, nor the meaning of 'normalize'. It falls short on compensating for the low coverage.

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 validates and normalizes identifiers by checksum/format, listing supported types. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_lei and screen_crypto_address, which focus on specific types; however, it doesn't explicitly contrast with them or mention normalization output.

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 explains auto-detection when type is omitted and mentions cost per call, which implies use for validation tasks. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_lei for LEI-specific needs, but the list of types and auto-detection provide reasonable context.

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