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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cost and output type but overpromises by stating 'returning ranked candidates' without clarifying that this depends on the `candidates` parameter; the schema shows it rejects ambiguous matches by default. It also omits error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, and does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and includes cost information. Every phrase contributes value: the verb, the resource, the search fields, the output type, and the pricing. There is no filler or redundancy, making it 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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the output type but lacks essential behavioral details like the conditional nature of candidate ranking, minimum parameter requirements (implicitly minProperties:1), and any caveats about data freshness or ambiguity. An agent might call it correctly but without full understanding of edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description lists the search dimensions (LEI, legal name, jurisdiction, registration ID, country) which map directly to parameters, and mentions 'candidates' as an output behavior. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions—no examples, format details, or usage constraints—so it stays at the baseline.

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 action ('Resolve a legal entity'), the resource ('public LEI registry records'), and the supported query dimensions (LEI, legal name, jurisdiction, registration ID, country). It also notes the output ('ranked candidates and evidence'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling search tools like people_search or profile_search, which target individuals rather than legal entities.

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 when you have any of the listed identifiers (LEI, name, jurisdiction, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparison with other tools are provided, leaving some inference required. It is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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