Legal Entity Identifier lookup by company name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that lapsed/retired/annulled entities are returned with a flag instead of hidden (and why), and states the exact cost per call and payment method. This goes beyond basic expectations but does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., rate limits or error handling), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, return fields, and edge-case/cost behavior. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though slightly longer than minimal. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a strong overall picture: what it does, what it returns, how edge cases are handled, and the cost. It lacks details on response format (e.g., JSON structure) but that is not required since no output schema exists. The schema covers parameters, and the description covers broader context well.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of q versus lei ('Search by company NAME, not just by identifier') and the schema provides the rest. It adds some nuance but does not introduce new parameter-level 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'lookup' with a clear resource ('LEI from the GLEIF golden copy') and explicitly states search by company name. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which relate to LEI or entity lookup.

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 clearly states the primary use case (looking up an LEI by company name) and contrasts it with using an identifier, implying the q parameter for name searches. It does not mention alternative tools because none are relevant, but it gives practical guidance on behavior (e.g., lapsed entities included) and costs, which helps the agent decide when to invoke it.

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