utilpeek: look up a company by LEI (GLEIF): legal name, status, addresses, parents

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

Well beyond the annotations (which only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld): it discloses 24h caching, latency range, price and free-tier limits, and, most valuably, which outcomes are charged vs not (unknown LEI found=false but charged; 422 bad LEI and 503 outage not charged), plus an untrusted-data warning. This is exactly the friction an agent needs before invoking a paid lookup.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then alternative, returns, then cost/error behavior; every sentence is informative. It is fairly dense but nothing is filler, though price/latency/free-tier details could be trimmed slightly for a 5.

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 an output schema present, it needn't explain return values, yet it still summarizes the key fields. Error codes, cost, caching, and the untrusted-content caveat are all covered, leaving no gap for a single-parameter paid lookup.

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 100% and the schema already documents the 20-character ISO 17442 format and the check-digit/422-not-charged behavior; the description largely restates that. Adequate baseline with no real additional param meaning 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?

States a specific verb (look up), resource (a company by LEI), and source register (GLEIF), and explicitly names the sibling it is not: 'To find an LEI by name use search_lei.' An agent can distinguish it from search_lei and sec_company_lookup without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: name-based discovery goes to search_lei, and this tool is the ID-based record fetch. It also makes the paid/free boundary and the outcome-specific charging rule usable at decision time.

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