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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: unresolved identifiers are listed under `unresolved` rather than omitted, ambiguous names return `figi_candidates` without asserting, and GLEIF/OpenFIGI failures degrade gracefully while EDGAR identifiers still return. It also explains source labelling and internal cascading lookups.

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 long but information-dense, and its structure helps: query examples and the core 'resolve name to ID' statement come first, followed by typed details and edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes behavior, parameter guidance, or caveats; there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so: it lists what is returned for company and drug types, names fields like `figi_candidates` and `unresolved`, and covers fallback behavior. An agent has enough context to select and call this 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?

Even though the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds critical semantics: accepted inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name; brand or generic drug name) and a specific warning to pass only the entity name, never the full noun phrase, with a bond example. This is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs to invoke `value` correctly.

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 action — 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input' — and supports it with concrete query examples ('ticker', 'CIK', 'LEI', 'RxCUI'). It also distinguishes the tool's role by noting it is the first stop when a name but no ID is available, which differentiates it from identifier-consuming siblings like entity_profile.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies that the tool replaces 2-3 manual lookups, implying a primary lookup role. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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