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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important behaviors: ambiguous matches return `figi_candidates`, unresolved identifiers are explicitly listed under `unresolved`, enrichment degrades gracefully, and each call cascades through multiple endpoints. These traits are useful and add real context beyond what annotations convey.

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 dense and packed with valuable details, and it is front-loaded with the core use case ('resolve a user-spoken NAME') and the 'Use FIRST' pointer. It is somewhat sprawling with long parentheticals, but nearly every sentence contributes necessary behavioral or semantic information, so it is more thorough than padded.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers supported types, edge cases, resolution behavior, and degradation of enrichment data. It explains what happens on ambiguous matches, how unresolved identifiers are represented, and what each entity type returns, leaving an agent well-equipped to call 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?

Although the schema is already detailed (100% coverage), the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name, brand/generic drug name) and how an ISIN resolves to a legal entity via GLEIF. It also clarifies that non-equity instruments without tickers can still resolve, which is not evident from the mere parameter list.

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 clear verb and resource: it resolves user-spoken names into canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools. It gives concrete query examples and enumerates supported entity types ('company', 'drug') with their identifier outputs, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', which gives strong contextual guidance. It does not name sibling tools or state exclusion conditions, but the examples and the 'FIRST' directive effectively tell an agent when to invoke this tool versus exploring alternatives.

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