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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that this is a read-style lookup and gives dataset size and return fields, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the matching behavior implied by the threshold parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus data source are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (LEI, legal name, jurisdiction), which is a real contribution. However, it omits the retrieval/matching context and sibling routing an agent would need, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 the query and threshold parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 0-1 range and 0.82 default. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or matching behavior, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (legal entities) and adds the data source (GLEIF, 20K+ records). It clearly reads as an entity-lookup tool, but it never names its siblings check_pep and check_sanctions, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives like check_pep or check_sanctions, despite those siblings covering adjacent screening tasks. An agent must guess whether to run an entity lookup versus a PEP or sanctions check.

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