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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds useful behavior: it returns entities with all identifiers and explicitly ranks matches as exact identifier > ticker > name. It does not cover edge cases like ambiguous names or empty/error responses, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concrete example and a ranking rule. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler or schema repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives input coverage and a sense of the return shape ('Apple with all identifiers') plus match ranking. It is nearly complete, though a bit more about ambiguity handling or output structure would make it fully self-contained.

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 schema documents the single query parameter with concrete examples, and the description adds semantics by naming the accepted identifier types and the ranking behavior. This goes beyond the schema without merely repeating it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and enumerates the resource types (ticker, LEI, ISIN, FIGI, MIC, name) plus a concrete example. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate resolve_identifier from the sibling lookup/search tools.

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 usage context is implied: pass an identifier or name when you need entity resolution. It does not state when to prefer this over lookup/search, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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