lookup_lei

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: results are ranked by name match, and lapsed/retired/annulled entities are flagged instead of filtered, with a note that a hidden record is indistinguishable from no record. This goes beyond basic functionality but does not cover pagination, error handling, or other edge-case behaviors.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary usage scenario, lists return fields in a single sentence, and adds a clarifying behavioral note. No unnecessary verbosity or confusing phrasing.

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 description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, and output fields. It lacks an output schema but compensates with a clear field list. It does not explicitly address when to use this tool vs. siblings, but the name-based lookup focus is implicit.

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?

All three parameters (q, lei, limit) have clear, detailed descriptions covering purpose, constraints (max length, exact LEI format, range), and defaults. Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter's semantics are fully explained.

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 tool's purpose: looking up a company by name (or LEI) in the GLEIF golden copy, and explicitly contrasts it with identifier-based lookup. It also lists the exact fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 name-based lookups ('knowing the LEI already is the hard part') and notes that lapsed/retired entities are flagged rather than filtered. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or provide decision criteria beyond the name-vs-identifier distinction.

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