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

Beyond the annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, the description discloses many important behaviors: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returning figi_candidates on ambiguous matches, explicitly listing unresolved identifiers, labeling identifiers by source, and internally cascading through multiple endpoints. This is far more behavioral context than annotations alone.

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 extremely dense and packed with valuable detail, but it is structured as one long run-on paragraph with heavy parentheticals. The front-loaded query examples and 'Use FIRST' directive are strong, but the lack of bullets or separation makes it harder to scan 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: resolved identifiers by source, unresolved handling, ambiguity behavior, failure degradation, accepted input forms, and type-specific details. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by documenting ISIN as an accepted input for company type (which the schema does not list) and explaining how the value is interpreted differently for company vs drug. It enriches parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It also gives concrete query paraphrases and the directive 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that consume IDs.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: use FIRST whenever the agent has a name but needs an ID, and it explains that the tool replaces 2-3 manual lookups. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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