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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does contribute real context by disclosing the data source (GLEIF) and the cost of one credit, which matters for agent budgeting. It says nothing about match behavior (exact vs fuzzy name matching), what is returned when no entity is found, or pagination/rate limits. Safe read-only nature is only inferred from the verb 'Find'.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and lookup keys, followed by the payoff fields and a cost note. There is no filler and every clause adds information.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating the returned attributes, which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it leaves the most consequential gaps for a multi-key lookup: which key to prefer, how name matching behaves, and what limit does remain unaddressed.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema entries are bare type names ('string', 'number', 'ISO2'), so the schema itself conveys little meaning. The description adds the mapping 'by LEI or name' and mentions 'direct and ultimate parent', which hints at the parents flag, but limit, country, and the boolean default are not elaborated. Baseline 3 fits given the coverage figure.

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 ('Find a legal entity'), names the authoritative source (GLEIF) and the two lookup keys (LEI or name), plus the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like company_search or wikidata_lookup by virtue of the LEI/GLEIF framing. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by LEI or name' — there is no statement of when an agent should choose this over company_search, company_profile, or wikidata_lookup, nor any when-not guidance. Nothing explains what happens when neither key is supplied, even though zero parameters are required.

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