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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds operational context by naming the GLEIF API source, stating that no API key is required, and listing the fields returned. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but those are secondary for a read-only search with an output schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return fields, and the use-case bullets keep selection logic scannable. The sentences about regulatory reporting and 2M+ entities provide useful domain background but are not strictly necessary for invocation, so the description is concise without being maximal.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the source, authentication needs, scope, use cases, and a sibling alternative. It leaves some ambiguity around the many generic schema parameters that seem unrelated to a public LEI search, but that does not prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 reported as 0% for the top-level params parameter, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'entity name' as the primary search criterion, which is useful, but it does not explain how to structure the params object, nor does it mention optional parameters like limit or country, or the fin-specific fields such as wholesaler_ids and source_resource_id. This is only partial compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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'), a specific resource ('Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) database'), and a clear object ('Legal Entity Identifiers by entity name'). It also lists concrete return fields (LEI code, legal name, registration status, legal address, jurisdiction), which seperates it from generic search tools and points to its exact sibling GetLEIDetail.

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 includes an explicit 'Use this tool when' section with concrete use cases and explicitly directs parent/subsidary lookups to GetLEIDetail. This gives an agent actionable selection criteria and an alternative, leaving little to inference.

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