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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the source (public records, implying read-only), and mentions cost and payment mechanism ('$0.01/call via x402'). However, it does not disclose the default behavior for ambiguous matches (rejection unless candidates=true is set) or describe error/failure modes, which are critical for a lookup tool. The description adds some value over the schema but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes the cost as a separate clause, which is useful but not strictly necessary. There is minimal wasted text, and the key information (what, how, cost) is efficiently conveyed. A slight improvement would be to place the cost information at the end, which it is, so the structure is effective.

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 tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core lookup action and cost but omits important usage details: that at least one parameter is required (though minProperties in schema conveys this), how parameters interact, and what the ranked candidates and evidence actually look like. Without annotations, more context about fallback behavior or error handling would be expected. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description lists the query fields but does not add syntax, formatting, or combination rules beyond what the schema provides. It does not, for example, clarify whether parameters can be combined or which combinations are valid. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already explains the parameters well.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve a legal entity'), the resource ('public GLEIF records'), and the query criteria (LEI, legal name, jurisdiction, registration ID or country). It also specifies the output ('ranked candidates and evidence'), which clearly differentiates it from general web or company research tools. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. While the GLEIF focus implies a use case for official legal entity resolution, there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for non-legal-entity lookups or when richer company data is needed). Given the large sibling list, explicit routing advice would improve clarity, but the purpose is narrow enough to be inferred.

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