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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the returned fields (legal name, registration number, jurisdiction, status, LEI, confidence, source corroboration), which clarifies the read-only, look-up nature. It does not explicitly state that no data is modified, but 'resolve' strongly implies a non-destructive operation, and the output detail offers reasonable transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the key returns. Every clause adds value: the action, the input type, the source, and the output fields. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what to input, and what it will output. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., not found), rate limits, or authentication, but these are not critical for making the call. Given the tool's simplicity, it covers the essential context adequately.

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% with both parameters ('name' and 'country') documented with descriptions. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description merely refers to 'business or vendor name' and optional country.

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 clearly states the action ('Resolve'), the resource ('a business or vendor name'), and the outcome ('to an official legal entity'). It also specifies the data source ('AgentKYB's global and national business-registry sources') and enumerates the returned fields, making it readily distinguishable from siblings like check_domain or screen_sanctions.

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 purpose implies use for legal entity lookups, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if only a domain is known, use check_domain) or any prerequisites. The context is present in the purpose but not framed as usage guidance.

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