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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context such as the scale (300M+ instruments, 45K+ exchanges) and output fields, enhancing understanding beyond annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, output description, and usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers core functionality, input types, and scale. It lacks details on optional exchange_code usage beyond examples, but is otherwise complete.

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 description adds limited value. The description mentions a subset of id_type enum values and provides examples for id_value and exchange_code (e.g., US, LN, JP). This helps but does not fully compensate for the missing enum items.

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 clearly states the tool resolves financial identifiers (ISIN, CUSIP, SEDOL, ticker) to Bloomberg FIGI, listing output fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like figi.finance.filter or figi.finance.search, which reduces specificity.

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 provides guidance on which id_type values to use (ID_ISIN, ID_CUSIP, ID_SEDOL, or TICKER) but does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or context for alternatives.

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