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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable transparency by stating that every fact includes supporting quotes, sources, and dates, and that unexamined fields are distinguished from fields no document discloses. It does not cover response format, error behavior, or access requirements, but for a read-oriented record tool these omissions are not critical.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a second sentence that adds substantive data-provenance detail. No unnecessary repetition exists, though the phrasing "Fields nobody examined and fields no document discloses are distinguished and say so" is slightly awkward but still informative.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's scope, the legal topics included, and important data-quality caveats. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect. A small gap is the lack of explicit output-format or empty-result behavior, but the content list largely compensates.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter well, including the "Wrapper slug or name fragment" description and an example. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. It reinforces the "one wrapper" scope, which is consistent with the schema.

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 that the tool provides "the full legal record of one wrapper" and enumerates the legal topics covered, such as structure, holder claim, insolvency ranking, and transfer restrictions. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, but the resource and scope are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_stock or lookup_token, though the "one wrapper" framing narrows its purpose.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need the complete legal record and supporting evidence for a single wrapper. The description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over coverage, lookup_stock, or lookup_token, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but leaves selection guidance to the agent.

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