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

Even with readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, ambiguous-name handling via `figi_candidates`, and cross-source identifier provenance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 but deliberately structured: trigger phrases first, then type-specific resolution behavior, then degradation/performance context. Every sentence adds operational detail an agent needs; no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 covers what will be returned for each type, what happens on ambiguity, and what happens when enrichment sources fail. The agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect in the result.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at high coverage, and the description goes well beyond it: it gives valid input forms for each type, concrete examples, and a critical bond-name caveat ('pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY... trailing security-class words match nothing'). This materially improves correct invocation.

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 names a specific operation — resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers — and lists concrete trigger phrases plus supported entity types. It clearly positions itself as the name-to-ID entry point that feeds other tools, distinguishing its role from sibling lookup/entity tools.

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 instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and gives trigger examples. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of a full exclusion/alternative matrix.

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