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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially discloses behavior by listing returned fields, but it does not clarify that at least one of name or LEI is expected, nor does it describe edge-case behavior (e.g., no parameters, both parameters provided, or no match found). This is a moderate amount of transparency for a simple read-only lookup.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then lists key identifiers and return fields, earning every word.

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 straightforward lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose, input identifiers, and output details. It lacks explicit handling of missing/both identifiers and error scenarios, but given the simplicity and complete schema descriptions, it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%; each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'LEI code (alternative to name)', 'Country code filter: DE, FR, GB, NL (optional)'). The main description adds minimal extra parameter semantics, only restating the name/LEI lookup modes, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('EU insurance company'), and clearly states the lookup keys ('by name or LEI number') and returned data ('GLEIF registration status, country, address, and Wikidata enrichment'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like insurance_glossary or risk_score, which serve different purposes.

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 phrase 'Look up EU insurance company by name or LEI number' implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the sibling tools (e.g., insurance_glossary, insurance_regulation), explicit disambiguation would improve guidance.

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