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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: result cap of 10 candidates, inclusion of parents.direct/ultimate, and cost ($0.05 USDC). It does not state matching semantics (are name/country/registered_as AND-ed or OR-ed?), what happens with zero required params, or what an empty/over-broad match returns.

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?

Front-loaded and dense, with the scope and routing guidance first, which is good. However, the lei_lookup price is stated twice ($0.005 appears in both the 'prefer' sentence and the 'Related' line), and the /kyb upsell adds noise that does not help an agent call this tool correctly.

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 zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns (candidates plus parent chains), the candidate cap, and the cost. The notable remaining gap is input semantics — how the four optional filters combine — which matters most for a screening tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It partially does so for name, country, and registered_as via an example, but never explains the lei parameter, whether the input is a lookup key or a filter, or how fields combine. Half of the parameter meaning is left to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: GLEIF multi-match screening on name/registered_as returning up to 10 candidates with parent chains. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling lei_lookup (single-LEI use case), so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Prefer lei_lookup $0.005 for a single LEI.' It also points at /kyb for onboarding. What is missing is any statement about when NOT to use this tool (e.g., exact-LEI verification, ambiguous or non-GLEIF registries).

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