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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the cross-source identity spine, non-equity instrument resolution, multi-candidate ambiguity via `figi_candidates`, explicit `unresolved` reporting, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, and the internal cascade that replaces 2-3 lookups. This is far more than the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations provide, and nothing contradicts them.

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 essential guidance is front-loaded with examples and a clear "Use FIRST" directive, but the description quickly becomes a dense, sprawling paragraph with lengthy parentheticals and nested clauses. It would benefit from structured bullets for entity types, input formats, and failure modes; as written it sacrifices readability for exhaustiveness.

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, the absence of an output schema, and the high-stakes ambiguity of entity resolution, the description covers the critical contexts: supported types, accepted input forms, multi-match behavior, unresolved identifiers, source labeling, ISIN-to-LEI coverage, and degraded availability. An agent can safely decide when to invoke it and what to do with ambiguous or unresolved output.

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 already 100%, but the description goes much further by giving concrete examples for both `type` and `value`, explaining ticker/CIK/ISIN/company-name input forms, and warning against passing full noun phrases like "NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds." This adds operational meaning that the schema alone would 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 uses a precise verb phrase — "resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers" — and names the supported entity types with their concrete identifier outputs (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI). It clearly differentiates resolve_entity from identifier-consuming tools by stating it is the first step when a name but no ID is available.

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 gives explicit guidance with the underlined-and-capitalized "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," along with many example phrasings. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so the exclusion guidance is limited despite strong positive usage direction.

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