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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the credit here goes to genuine extras: ambiguity yields multiple candidates, the tool 'never guesses', and it deliberately excludes price data. What is missing is any note on result ordering or how an agent should disambiguate among returned candidates.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the accepted input forms front-loaded and the fallback behavior plus exclusions following. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description covers inputs, ambiguity handling, and scope exclusions. The remaining gap is the shape of a successful response (single object vs. candidate list, and what fields identify a candidate), which the agent must discover at runtime.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it tells the agent that 'query' accepts an exact ticker, a Cyrillic name, a Latin transliteration, or a curated alias. It stops short of showing concrete syntax or stating whether matching is exact versus fuzzy for each form.

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 and resource ('Resolve a Macedonian Stock Exchange issuer') and immediately enumerates the accepted identifier forms. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_company_intelligence or get_company_news, which return content rather than identity resolution.

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 makes the intended input space explicit (ticker, Cyrillic name, Latin transliteration, alias) and rules out one adjacent use case ('does not return prices'). It does not explicitly say to call this before the company content tools, so the sequencing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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