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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI providers are unavailable, explicit labeling of identifier sources, explicit `unresolved` reporting, returning `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, and the fact that each call cascades through several internal lookups. 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 long, but almost every clause earns its place by specifying identifiers, sources, edge cases, or input constraints. It front-loads the purpose and usage rule before the detailed type breakdown. Slightly overstuffed with parenthetical asides, so it is not a 5, but it is exceptionally information-dense rather 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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will get back. It covers returned identifiers per type, source labeling, unresolved handling, ambiguous-match behavior, degradation under provider outages, and accepted input formats. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description goes well beyond it. For `value` it warns to pass only the entity name, not the full noun phrase, because trailing security-class words will break FIGI matching. For `type` it explains supported entity types and the exact identifier sets returned for each, adding meaning the enum alone cannot convey.

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-phrase examples and then states a specific verb+resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like entity_profile or search_within by defining its role as the identifier-resolution entry point for companies and drugs.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also details type-specific behavior, including when ambiguity should result in figi_candidates rather than an assertion. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use context is unmistakable.

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