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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the call returns multiple candidates and the identifier to carry forward (`slug`, with `domain`/`id` fallback). It does not discuss candidate ranking, ambiguity handling, or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the input forms and the return contract in the first sentence, then uses a short second paragraph for the AND-composition rule and the sibling redirect. No filler or restatement of the parameter list.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the candidate payload and the field to forward. Combined with the requiredness and ANDing rules, an agent has everything needed to call this tool and chain its result correctly.

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, but the description contributes two facts the schema does not encode: that at least one identifier is mandatory (the schema lists zero required parameters) and that multiple identifiers are ANDed rather than ORed. These meaningfully change how an agent composes a call.

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 (resolve) and resource (company) plus the exact accepted identifier forms (name, ticker, CIK, QID, domain). It also distinguishes itself from the adjacent resolvers by explicitly routing people/other KG entities to `particle_entity_resolve`, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('At least one identifier is required'), tells the agent identifiers are ANDed for disambiguation, and names the alternative sibling (`particle_entity_resolve`) for non-company entities. It even lists which downstream tools consume the returned identifier, which is actionable routing guidance.

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