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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing multi-endpoint cascading, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, the `unresolved` field, `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, and source labeling for each identifier. These traits are not encoded in the annotations and materially change how an agent should interpret results.

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 user intent and the core action, and nearly every sentence adds useful operational detail. However, the company block is one extremely long run-on with many nested qualifications, which makes it harder to scan; a bulleted or more segmented structure would improve readability without losing content.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters but complex multi-source behavior and no output schema, the description covers input forms, identifier sources, return fields, ambiguity handling, unresolved reporting, and degradation behavior. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results across company and drug cases.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: company input also accepts ISIN, the 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' rule prevents a whole noun phrase from being passed, and the bond example clarifies exactly what the FIGI lookup expects. The warning about trailing security-class words is a concrete misuse-prevention detail beyond the schema.

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 then states the core action: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first-step name-to-ID resolver, and the explicit SUPPORTED TYPES company/drug remove ambiguity about scope.

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 rule 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' is an explicit when-to-use trigger, and the per-type details spell out valid inputs such as ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand, and generic name. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for the inverse case (already have an ID), so the when-not guidance is partial rather than complete.

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