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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well on the critical point: no actual resolution occurs, the call records a request, and the response is not-covered. It omits auth, rate-limit, and persistence details, but discloses the main behavioral surprise clearly.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the non-implementation status, and every clause conveys either status, intended scope, or return behavior. There is no wasted text.

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 non-implemented roadmap probe with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what calling the tool does and what comes back. Parameter meanings remain thin, but the unusual status and side effect are fully surfaced.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3, but the schema descriptions are merely field names and the tool description adds no further meaning for name, identifiers, or jurisdiction. The nested identifiers object in particular remains semantically unspecified.

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 the intended aggregate resolution scope across named registries and immediately qualifies it as a roadmap probe that is not yet served. It is clear about intended versus actual behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as entity_match or kyb_verdict.

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 a strong when-not signal by saying the tool is 'not yet served' and that calling it only records the ask and returns not-covered. However, it does not name alternatives like entity_match, kyb_verdict, or request_data, so selection guidance is implied rather than complete.

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