run_gleif_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does it reasonably well: it names the source page ('Current Data tab') and enumerates exactly what comes back (names, legal form, registration authority, BIC/ISIN, addresses, parents), plus the notable '5 point per returned record' cost. It omits failure behavior for an invalid or malformed LEI, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and input, then the payload. The returned-field list is long but each item is informative; the trailing cost note is short and useful.

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?

No output schema exists, so enumerating the returned fields is the right compensation, and the single required parameter is fully documented. Missing only error/empty-result behavior for a bad LEI, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% and the schema itself already documents the single `company` parameter with an example LEI, so the description's 'LEI code or search.gleif.org link' restates rather than extends it. Baseline 3 applies; no format constraints or edge cases are added.

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 and resource ('Get one LEI record from the Global LEI Index') and pins the input shape ('by LEI code or search.gleif.org link'), which cleanly separates it from run_gleif_companies_search and run_lei_lookup_companies in the sibling list.

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 phrasing 'one LEI record ... by LEI code or link' implies this is the single-record lookup you use when you already hold an identifier, but it never says so explicitly nor points to the search sibling for name-based discovery. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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