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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Matches are name-based; verify identity before relying on any link.' It also sets expectations with 'Returns a per-source summary plus top records' and mentions a confidence score. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the safety-relevant behavior is well covered.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds either scope, output, context, or a caveat. The phrase 'AI-native lookup' is slightly redundant and the framing sentence about silos could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and readable.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description reasonably explains return content: per-source summary, top records, and a confidence score. It also names the source domains and warns about name-based matching. It could be more complete by describing what happens when no records are found in a source, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents name, limit, and state well. The description adds contextual value by saying matches are name-based, which reinforces the meaning of the 'name' parameter, but it does not add significant parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 is explicit: 'Build a consolidated cross-source dossier for a company in one call' and names three distinct source families (SEC/EDGAR, EPA ECHO, OFAC/UN/EU/BIS). It also states the output shape ('per-source summary plus top records'), which clearly differentiates it from the many single-source sibling tools like edgar_company_facts or sanctions_screen_entity.

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 description gives clear context: use it when you need a consolidated multi-source company lookup in one call and frames it as 'a single AI-native lookup across data that otherwise lives in separate silos.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as when a deeper single-source investigation is needed.

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