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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources are unavailable, explicit 'unresolved' reporting, source-labeling of identifiers, and the candidate-returning behavior for ambiguous names. These are genuinely useful behavioral traits that the agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 long and dense, but nearly every sentence adds operational value. It is front-loaded with usage examples then proceeds through supported types, edge-case behavior, and failure modes. A slight organizational simplification would make it more scannable, but the verbosity is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the full invocation contract: input formats per type, edge cases like ambiguous bonds, unresolved identifiers, source attribution, degradation behavior, and the fact that it replaces multiple manual lookups. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret its results.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial parameter-level meaning: it clarifies that `value` must be the entity name only, provides examples for both company and drug types, and warns against including trailing security-class words for bond issuers. This is precisely the kind of guidance that prevents invocation errors, so it earns more than the baseline 3.

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 ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers'), and immediately distinguishes the tool's role as the provider of IDs that other tools require. It enumerates supported entity types and what identifiers are returned for each, making its purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 gives clear usage guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also gives example phrasings and explains when the tool intentionally returns candidates rather than asserting a single answer. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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