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

Annotations mark it readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description goes beyond this by disclosing multi-step cascade behavior, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, the 'asserts nothing' policy when multiple matches exist (returning figi_candidates), and explicit listing of unresolved identifiers. These are important behavioral traits not visible in 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 well-organized, front-loading the primary use case and then breaking out details for company vs drug types. Every sentence carries substantive information, though some redundancy exists (e.g., multiple mentions of FIGI behavior). For a tool with this complexity, the length is justified, and the structure aids scanning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input flexibility, edge cases (multiple matches, unresolvable identifiers), degradation behavior, and what to expect in results (figi_candidates, unresolved). It also explains the relationship to other tools by noting these identifiers are required by other tools. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial strategic meaning: for bonds, pass the exact issuer name only and never trailing security-class words; ISINs resolve to the issuing legal entity; and each identifier is labelled with its source. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and materially improves call correctness.

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 example queries and immediately states the tool's function: resolving a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers. It lists supported types (company, drug) and details what identifiers each type returns (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), clearly distinguishing it from other tools that consume IDs rather than produce them.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving a precise invocation condition. It also provides input-form guidance (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name) and warns against passing full noun phrases for bonds, which is practical usage advice. This enables an agent to decide when to call this tool vs alternatives.

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