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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: internal multi-endpoint cascading, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting instead of omission, and returning `figi_candidates` rather than asserting an answer on ambiguous matches. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 routing guidance and examples, then structured by supported type. It is long and dense, with some editorial asides, but nearly every sentence carries operational value for a tool with this much domain complexity. A more compact version could trim repeated examples, but the structure remains navigable.

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 carries the burden of explaining return semantics, and it does: identifiers are labeled by source, unresolved identifiers appear under `unresolved`, ambiguous FIGI matches return `figi_candidates`, and drug lookups return RxCUI plus ingredient and brand. Combined with the annotations and schema, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description and parameter docs go well beyond the schema. They explain accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), give examples, warn against including trailing security-class words for bond issuers, and clarify ISIN-to-LEI behavior for non-US entities. This materially reduces the chance of 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-phrase examples and a crisp definition: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical identifiers other tools require. It clearly distinguishes the tool as the name-to-ID resolver in a large sibling set, and enumerates supported types (company, drug) with specifics like CIK, LEI, FIGI, and RxCUI.

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 instruction 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' is an explicit, actionable routing rule. It also explains that internal cascading replaces multiple manual lookups. However, it never names specific sibling tools to avoid or states exclusions such as 'if you already have the ID, use another tool.'

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