gleif_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; naming the GLEIF API does disclose that this is an external authoritative registry query, which is useful. However, it says nothing about failure modes (no match vs. multiple matches), network dependency, or rate limiting.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the operation is simple. Still, the one unanswered question that matters — what to put in 'q' — is left open, which is a meaningful gap for a one-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is named only 'q', yet the description does not say whether q is a company name, a partial name, or an LEI code. That ambiguity directly affects how the tool should be called, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and a specific resource (a company's LEI) plus the data source (GLEIF API). No sibling tool overlaps with LEI lookup, so the absence of sibling differentiation is not a real gap, but the description stops short of being maximally precise about what a lookup returns.

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 no conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended use (resolving a company name to an LEI) is only implied by the phrase 'a company's LEI'.

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