verify_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it searches the LEI database without an API key, and explains the significance of 'ACTIVE status' vs 'no match'. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about data source and evidence strength.

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 (2 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value: source, evidence interpretation, and usage condition. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, data source, evidence interpretation, and usage context. It lacks details on optional parameters but is otherwise complete for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

The description only mentions 'company name', ignoring the optional 'jurisdiction' and 'response_format' parameters. Even though the input schema provides descriptions for these (schema coverage appears high), the description adds no value for parameters beyond the name. It fails to guide the agent on available optional inputs.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'global LEI database (GLEIF)' for a company name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., check_domain, check_email) by specifying a unique data source and purpose. The evidence interpretation ('active status is strong evidence') further clarifies the tool's role.

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 explicitly states 'Use when: a company name is claimed in the offer.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.

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