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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only/idempotent, and the description adds substantial context: source-labelled identifiers, an explicit `unresolved` field, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, internal cascading lookups, and drug output fields. 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 and front-loaded with examples and the 'Use FIRST' rule, and nearly every clause adds useful information. However, the company support parenthetical is long and heavily nested, which makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it enumerates identifiers by source, the `unresolved` field, graceful degradation behavior, and accepted input forms. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds critical conventions: accepted ticker/CIK/ISIN/name formats, drug brand/generic inputs, and the warning to pass the issuer exactly as printed rather than the full noun phrase. This meaningfully reduces misuse.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: resolve a name to canonical identifiers. It also distinguishes the tool from downstream siblings by noting these identifiers are what 'other tools require as input' and instructs '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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and illustrates with example queries. It covers edge cases like non-equity bonds and ISINs, but it does not name specific alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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