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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: it returns candidate matches, requires at least one identifier, ANDs multiple identifiers together, and explains the agent-facing identifier fallback chain (slug -> domain -> id). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two compact paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and identifier scope; the rest covers downstream usage, constraints, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 resolve-style tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: accepted identifier types, required input semantics, output identifier fallback, downstream tools to use with the result, and the relevant alternative for non-company entities. The annotations cover safety, so no further behavioral disclosure is essential.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics that the schema does not: at least one identifier is required, multiple identifiers are ANDed for disambiguation, and the output identifier should be forwarded to downstream tools. This exceeds the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Resolve a company' and enumerates the identifier types supported. It also distinguishes itself from particle_entity_resolve by specifying that people and other knowledge-graph entities are out of scope. This makes it easy for an agent to know exactly what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: resolve companies by name/ticker/CIK/QID/domain, and pass the returned identifier to specific downstream tools. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use alternative: 'For people or other knowledge-graph entities (not companies) use particle_entity_resolve instead.' This is strong routing guidance.

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