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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining the screening semantics: hits are candidates, no hit is not clearance, screeningStatus indicates whether the cross-reference ran, and sanctionsScreen distinguishes capped from complete results. It also clarifies that empty sanctionsHits under not_ready means mirror unavailability. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Though relatively long, every sentence earns its place: the main fetch is stated first, followed by necessary caveats about screening reliability and cap behavior. There is zero filler and the structure front-loads the primary purpose before diving into nuances.

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 tool with a single required parameter, a fully described input schema, and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational details. It explains edge cases (mirror unavailable, capped results) that affect interpretation, leaving no ambiguity for an agent deciding how to call and interpret the result.

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 the pattern and description already in the input schema. The description adds a minor clarification of LEI format (18 alphanumerics + 2 check digits) which is redundant with the pattern. The added value over the schema is minimal, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Fetch the full GLEIF Level 1 record for one LEI' and enumerates the exact fields (legal name, addresses, registration status, etc.), making the verb and resource unambiguous. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like sanctions_get_designation (designations) and sanctions_screen_name (name-based screening) by centering on a single LEI lookup plus screening.

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 clearly implies usage when an LEI is available and a full record with screening is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for name-based lookups (e.g., sanctions_resolve_entity, sanctions_screen_name). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, though explicit exclusions are missing.

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