company_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral context by promising a 'full GLEIF record' and enumerating the group-structure fields returned. It does not discuss failure modes or data freshness, but for a simple get-by-identifier tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the group-structure detail is appended efficiently. Every word adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the input and the key contents of the output. It could be even more complete by mentioning whether invalid LEIs return an error or null, but this is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'lei' parameter with an example and format, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a LEI), the action (returning the full GLEIF record), and the specific scope (including direct parent, ultimate parent, and subsidiaries). This is precise and naturally distinguishes the tool from search-oriented siblings like company_search or nl_company_search.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a LEI and need the full GLEIF record. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it compare itself to sibling tools such as company_search or eu_company_search, so the agent must infer the boundary from context.

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