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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit reporting of unresolved identifiers, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, source labeling, and internal cascading lookups. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model without contradicting the read-only and idempotent 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance. The detailed entity-type sections are dense and somewhat sprawling, yet each part adds needed operational nuance. It could be tightened, but the structure is logical and the key information appears early.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers what an agent needs to know: input formats, expected outputs, unresolved identifier behavior, ambiguous match handling, and degradation strategy. No critical operational gap remains.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the type enum, gives concrete examples for value, and warns about passing only the entity name rather than a full noun phrase for bonds. It also clarifies accepted formats like ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name, which are not fully detailed in the schema alone.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly distinguishes its role as the first step when a name needs to become an ID, and the extensive examples make the purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains supported entity types, accepted input forms, and edge cases like ambiguous names and bond issuers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'use first' framing provides clear contextual direction.

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