lookup_company_by_lei

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a lookup action, which implies read-only, but does not explicitly mention that it has no side effects, what happens if the LEI is invalid or unknown, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. A read-only tool with no annotation coverage should disclose more.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the identifier and source. Every word contributes 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?

The tool is simple (single parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits failure modes (e.g., LEI not found) and any other runtime behavior. For a basic lookup, this is acceptable but not fully complete given the absence of annotations.

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% (the LEI parameter has no description in the schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by LEI' and lists the output fields, but does not provide format constraints, length, or validation rules for the LEI input. The description adds minimal semantic meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 states the action ('look up'), the resource ('company data'), and specifies the identifier ('by LEI') and the source ('via GLEIF'). It names the fields returned (legal name, address, status), which distinguishes it from sibling toolkit tools like lookup_company_by_vat.

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 usage for LEI-based lookups but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or state when to prefer this over lookup_company_by_vat. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the right context, but explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions is missing.

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