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

The annotations already declare this operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the key safety traits are covered. The definition adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the output is deterministic, so the same inputs always yield the same ID. It says nothing about failure modes such as an unknown jurisdiction, a malformed file number, or an entity with no LEI.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the output (the deterministic ID) and then the input source. Every clause carries information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool is simple, with two required string parameters and rich annotations, so the definition is close to sufficient. However, it never says what the returned ID looks like (format, length, or prefix), which matters for a tool whose entire output is that identifier, and it has no output schema to cover that 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters and the "lei" pseudo-jurisdiction are already documented in the input schema. The definition restates the two input modes (registry jurisdiction plus file number, or LEI), which reinforces rather than extends the schema, so it lands at the baseline.

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 definition names a specific action (compute a deterministic FactLot ID) and a specific resource (a legal entity — LLC, LP, corporation, trust), which cleanly separates it from the other id_* siblings such as id_parcel, id_document, and id_space. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, so sibling differentiation is implied by the resource type rather than stated.

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 definition implicitly tells the agent to call it when it needs a stable identifier for a legal entity and even sketches two input paths: registry jurisdiction plus file number, or LEI. It does not say when to prefer one path over the other, what to do if the entity type is ambiguous, or what replaces this tool for individuals or non-registered entities.

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