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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the data source, update frequency, CC0 license, 24-hour cache, and per-call price, which is more transparent than typical tool descriptions. However, it does not mention any authentication or error behavior.

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 a single paragraph packed with essential information: purpose, example queries, result fields, cache, and pricing. It is dense but efficient, with every clause adding value and no filler.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a solid overview: query patterns, result structure, and operational details (cache, price, source). It lacks explicit instructions on parameter interaction (e.g., whether lei overrides search) but is reasonably complete for a lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so via concrete examples: '?lei=...' for direct lookup and '?name=airbus&country=FR&limit=5' for search, clarifying the roles of lei, name, country, and limit. It also lists result fields, but does not detail parameter constraints like case sensitivity or optionality.

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 provides legal entity reference data from the GLEIF LEI golden copy, with both direct lookup by LEI and search by name/country. It distinguishes itself from sibling company lookup tools by its specific data source and focus on LEI data.

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 implies usage for LEI data lookups but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like lei_ownership or lookup_company_fr. It provides query examples but no alternative comparisons or exclusions.

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