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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses multi-endpoint internal cascading, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, ambiguous matches returning `figi_candidates`, and source labelling. 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?

It front-loads example queries and the core purpose, then organizes details under SUPPORTED TYPES. It is long and parenthetical-heavy, but every section carries necessary differentiation for a complex two-type resolver, so it earns the sentences.

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 still covers input forms, supported types, return behavior (`unresolved`, `figi_candidates`, source labels), and failure modes. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly for both company and drug resolutions.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds more by accepting ISIN as an additional company input, explaining the ISIN-to-LEI mapping, and reinforcing the ENTITY-NAME-ONLY constraint with a concrete negative example. This is meaningful added guidance but some material is already present in 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 states a clear action and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It further enumerates supported entity types and example queries. It does not explicitly name sibling tools/alternatives, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance with 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and explains accepted input forms. It does not spell out when to prefer alternatives or list excluded cases, so it misses the full 5.

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