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

Despite annotations already marking readOnly/idempotent, the description adds rich behavioral detail: exact identifiers returned per type (CIK/ticker/company_name, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI/ingredient/brand + citation), an explicit `unresolved` field rather than omission, `figi_candidates` for ambiguous names, and graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable. This goes well beyond the annotation signals.

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 densely packed but poorly organized, with numerous run-on clauses. The segment 'more than one instrument it asserts nothing and returns `figi_candidates` to pick from' is grammatically broken and confusing, undermining readability. While front-loaded with the purpose, the middle section should have been restructured or split into clear sentences.

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-type resolver with no output schema, the description covers input forms, outputs, ambiguity handling, and failure behavior, including a fallback if external sources are offline. The only hiccup is that the garbled figi_candidates sentence slightly blurs the explanation of ambiguous results, so completeness is strong but not perfect.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by disclosing that ISIN is also accepted as company input and by explaining ISIN-to-LEI mapping for non-US issuers. It also restates the entity-name-only rule, reinforcing the schema's warning about noun phrases.

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 phrasings and states a specific verb+resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It distinguishes itself as the ID-resolution first step, which separates it from siblings like entity_profile and 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' This is clear context, though it stops short of naming sibling tools or saying when NOT to use it (e.g., if an ID is already available). Still, the examples and 'FIRST' make the intended usage unambiguous.

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