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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returns explicitly listed `unresolved` identifiers rather than omitting them, and can emit `figi_candidates` when a name is ambiguous. These are genuine behavioral details an agent needs to reason about outcomes.

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 and dense, but the structure is effective: user phrasings and the 'use first' rule are front-loaded, followed by supported types and edge-case explanations. Some parentheticals are verbose, yet they earn their place by documenting ambiguous-name behavior and non-US issuer handling.

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, two required params, and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers accepted inputs across all types, result behaviors, failure modes, enrichment degradation, and ambiguity handling. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the returned identifiers.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value for the `value` parameter: it warns to pass the entity name only, demonstrates ticker/CIK/name examples, and explicitly cautions against including trailing security-class words like 'revenue bonds.' It also clarifies the meaning of the `type` enum by explaining what each type returns.

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 opens with concrete user phrasings and states a specific verb/resource pair: resolve a spoken NAME to canonical identifiers. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like compare_entities or entity_profile by positioning it as the identity-lookup step other tools depend on, and explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.'

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 positive trigger ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and enumerates supported entity types and input forms. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead, nor does it state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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