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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: multiple matches produce `figi_candidates`, unresolved IDs go under `unresolved`, and LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully when upstream sources are unavailable. This gives the agent a realistic model of what the tool will return and how it behaves under uncertainty or partial failure.

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 purpose and use trigger, and the content is dense and valuable. However, the SUPPORTED TYPES section is a very long run-on with nested parentheticals and at least one garbled phrase ("more than one instrument it asserts nothing"), which makes it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 there is no output schema, the description supplies a complete picture of expected outputs: CIK, ticker, company name, LEI with ownership, FIGI candidates, RxCUI and ingredient/brand, plus explicit unresolved behavior and graceful degradation. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to handle edge 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 invocation detail: exact examples for ticker, CIK, and drug names, plus a clear warning that for bonds the issuer must be passed exactly as printed and never as part of the question's full noun phrase. This materially improves the agent's ability to call the tool correctly.

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 queries and states a specific action: "resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input." It also frames itself with "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," which clearly separates it from sibling tools by establishing it as the identifier-lookup entry point.

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 provides an explicit trigger: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," and adds practical guidance about passing entity names only and not full noun phrases for bonds. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when another sibling would be preferable, so the guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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