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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's value-add is the cost model: free within a daily allowance, then $0.003 USDC per call via x402. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of stating rate limits or matching semantics.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded, with no padding. The opening fragment is slightly under-specified, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one-parameter surface is simple. However, the description omits matching semantics and sibling routing (exact vs fuzzy vs autocomplete), leaving the agent to guess which LEI search tool to pick.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is documented as 'Legal name'. The description only restates this, adding no format, casing, or exact-vs-prefix matching detail. Baseline 3 applies with zero parameters beyond the schema.

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 fragment 'Entities whose legal name matches' names the resource and the match dimension, but it is not a complete verb+resource statement and it does not distinguish this tool from gleif__fuzzy or gleif__autocomplete, which also match names. The title carries most of the clarity.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the obvious alternatives (gleif__fuzzy for approximate matching, gleif__autocomplete for prefix suggestions). Only pricing is stated.

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