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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is free, that it resolves to exact legal entities, and that ambiguous names return candidates. However, it does not describe what happens when no match is found, whether candidates include confidence scores, or any rate limits. The 'Free' prefix is useful behavioral context, but the description could be more transparent about edge cases.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The key action ('resolve') and purpose ('before buying evidence') are front-loaded, and the candidate behavior is stated succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the input, the purpose, and the ambiguity behavior. It lacks explicit mention of what happens with no match or how candidates are presented, but given the tool's simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('Chinese company or supplier name'). The description adds the purpose of the parameter (resolving to legal entity) but does not add format details, examples, or disambiguation guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('Chinese company/supplier name to the exact legal entity'), and clarifies the purpose ('before buying evidence'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting ambiguous names are returned as candidates, which helps an agent understand this is a disambiguation/lookup step rather than an evidence retrieval tool.

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 implies when to use this tool: before purchasing evidence, to resolve a name to the exact legal entity. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the context signals show siblings are evidence retrieval tools, and the description's 'before buying evidence' provides clear contextual guidance. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention of alternatives.

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