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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond those: cross-source lookups (SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, RxNorm), graceful degradation when enrichment sources are unavailable, explicit unresolved identifier reporting, ambiguous-match candidate behavior, and the ISIN-to-LEI mapping for non-US issuers.

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 front-loaded with examples and the 'Use FIRST' instruction, but it is extremely long and rambling, with many nested parenthetical clauses and run-on constructions. Nearly every piece of information is useful, but the lack of clear formatting and compressed presentation makes it harder to scan than it should be.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains return behavior thoroughly: sources for each identifier type, what is returned for drugs (RxCUI, ingredient, brand, pipeworx citation), what happens on ambiguous matches, what appears in unresolved, and how failures degrade. Given the tool's complexity, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The schema already covers both parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds extra meaning by specifying accepted company input forms beyond the schema (ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name), distinguishing behavior by type, and detailing what each type returns. It raises the value above baseline but stops short of a 5 because the schema still carries most of the literal parameter documentation.

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 verb ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers'), with concrete example queries. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by stating that other tools require these identifiers as input, implying this is the identity-resolution step before profile or comparison tools are used.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which is direct selection guidance. It also gives concrete use cases ('who owns X', 'is X a subsidiary of Y') and explains when the tool will not assert a single answer (ambiguous FIGI matches), so the agent knows when to expect candidates instead of a definitive result.

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