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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and external-call profile is covered. The description adds only the framing that results are KYB/LEI records; it says nothing about exact vs fuzzy name matching, multiple-match behavior, or rate/coverage limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the wording is wasted.

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 read-only lookup this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say at least roughly what comes back (entity record, LEI code, status versus multiple matches). That gap keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the name field and gives examples. The description adds no extra meaning about matching semantics or input format, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and named resource: query the GLEIF registry for corporate KYB and LEI records. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the authoritative source (GLEIF), but never explicitly contrasts with the close sibling corporate_kyb_and_risk_dossier.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent has to infer from the name alone that this is a name-based lookup against an external registry rather than a broader risk dossier.

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