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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: graceful degradation (LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades, EDGAR identifiers still return), cascading internal lookups, and the fact that non-ticker instruments resolve. It doesn't fully detail rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only resolver this is strong context beyond 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 densely informative, with front-loaded examples and clear scoping. Each sentence adds meaning, from supported types to degradation behavior to an explicit 'use FIRST' routing. Some redundancy exists with the schema's enum descriptions, but the additional guidance justifies the length.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-source resolution, multiple ID types, graceful degradation), the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: input formats, source coverage, fallbacks, and exclusions. No output schema exists, but the description names the outputs (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, etc.), compensating for that absence.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, but the description goes far beyond the schema by explaining how to format the value, what entities are acceptable for each type, and what not to pass (e.g., trailing security-class words). The 'value' parameter gains substantial practical semantics from the description's examples and exclusionary guidance.

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-phrase examples and a clear verb 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that work from IDs or profiles (e.g., compare_entities, entity_profile) by explicitly stating its role as the name-to-ID gateway. It also specifies supported types company and drug.

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,' which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also gives negative guidance ('never the question's full noun phrase') and details what resolves, including non-equity instruments, which prevents common agent errors. Naming alternatives is not required here because this tool is the canonical entry point for ID resolution.

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