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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this exceptionally: it states the data is approximate, versioned ('seed-0.7 · marketcap-1 · 2026-08-30'), not real-time, licensed under CC BY 4.0, and that live_data series refresh every 3 hours. This goes far beyond the structured schema and gives the agent critical context about data freshness and limitations.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every clause adds meaningful context, though the data-version and license details make it slightly longer than necessary. It is structured well: purpose, behavior, then usage guidance.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong contextual coverage: what it returns, data quality, license, appropriate use cases, and exclusions. The only minor gap is not fully describing the return structure beyond 'full structured record' and external identifiers, which would be useful at this level of simplicity.

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 50%, with id already documented as an entity slug with examples, and entity_type covered by an explicit enum. The description adds the phrase 'by type and id (slug)' and identifies the resource as a financial entity, but it does little to further explain parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It is adequate but not a significant compensation for the entity_type parameter's missing description.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get one financial entity by type and id (slug).' It immediately distinguishes lookup from list/search siblings by emphasizing singular retrieval, and it names the domain (financial entities). This is unambiguous and fully differentiates the tool's 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?

The description explicitly lists correct uses: 'entity resolution, classification, relationships, jurisdiction/venue context.' It also provides a clear when-not: 'For live quotes or legal text go to the primary sources each entity links,' and explicitly notes this tool is 'NOT real-time' while referencing live_data. This gives an agent actionable routing guidance.

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