find_official_filer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it specifies the returned candidate fields (LEI, country, number of filings) and the geographic coverage gap (German/Irish excluded). It does not, however, describe result ordering, pagination, or behavior when no candidates match.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the usage handoff, then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a one-parameter search with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (candidates with LEI, country, filing count), how to use the result (pass LEI to get_financials), and known coverage limits. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret its output.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, and the schema itself explains it accepts part of the registered name with an example ('ASML'). The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint details for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Find'), resource ('European or UK listed company in the index of official annual reports (ESEF, filings.xbrl.org)'), and the return fields (LEI, country, number of filings). It also differentiates from get_financials by explaining the LEI handoff and notes the German/Irish exclusion, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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 says to pass the chosen LEI to get_financials as the symbol for official IFRS annual figures, and states 'Not covered: German and Irish companies.' This gives clear when-to-use and exclusion guidance, with the next-step alternative named.

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