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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit `unresolved` output rather than silent omission, non-assertion with `figi_candidates`, source labelling of identifiers, and internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints. There is no contradiction with the 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 front-loaded with query analogies and the 'Use FIRST' directive, which helps an agent quickly understand the tool. It is dense and long, but most sentences carry unique operational meaning; a slight structural compression of the company-type details would improve readability without losing value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what is left unresolved, how ambiguity is handled, how failures degrade, and what input formats are accepted. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly across both supported entity types.

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 covers both parameters fully, the description enriches them significantly: it explains each supported entity type, provides concrete accepted input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand, generic), and warns to pass only the entity name because trailing security-class words will break FIGI matching. This adds critical semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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 names a specific verb ('resolve'), a resource (user-spoken names to canonical identifiers), and enumerates concrete query patterns. It clearly distinguishes itself from other tools by stating it produces identifiers that 'other tools require as input', so an agent can differentiate it from 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', giving a clear triggering condition. It also shows what types of queries route here. However, it does not name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when you already have an ID or want a profile), so it stops short of full alternative-selection guidance.

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