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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: the CC0 licensing of the data and a paid x402 model at 0.01 USD per call. It does not say what happens on zero arguments, on a name search with no matches, or whether failed calls are still billed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and access modes first, followed by the returned field list, then license and price. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the data source, the returned fields, the license, and the cost – enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the zero-argument case and empty-result behavior for name searches.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the 'up to 5 candidates' behavior for name search. The description only restates the two lookup modes without adding format, precedence, or combination rules (e.g., which parameter wins if both are supplied).

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?

States a specific verb+resource: LEI lookup in the GLEIF Global LEI Index, with both access modes (by LEI or by legal name) and the fields returned. It does not differentiate itself from company-registry siblings such as fi_company, no_company, or dk_address, which an agent might reasonably consider for an entity lookup.

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?

'by LEI or legal name' implies the two entry modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of the company-registry siblings, and no statement about what happens when neither parameter is supplied (required parameters = 0). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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