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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguity behavior (returns figi_candidates instead of asserting), explicit unresolved fields, source labelling, and internal cascading lookups. It also notes ISIN resolution reaches non-US issuers via GLEIF, which is non-obvious behavior an agent needs to trust the result.

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 core directive is front-loaded and useful, but the body is a dense, sprawling set of parentheticals and repeated caveats (e.g., the figi_candidates sentence is overly long). It is not inappropriately short, but it would benefit from tighter sentence structure and clearer separation of core behavior from edge cases.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying what identifiers are returned for each type (CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, FIGI; RxCUI, ingredient, brand), how unresolved identifiers are represented, and how ambiguity is surfaced. It covers failure modes, input variants, and source availability, so an agent has enough context to call and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds critical value constraints: for company value it explains accepted inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name) and for the FIGI path it instructs passing the issuer exactly as printed and warns against trailing security-class words. It also expands the type enum with the full company/drug resolution behavior and identifiers returned.

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 opens with concrete example phrasings and a clear verb-resource statement: resolve a spoken NAME to canonical identifiers that other tools require. It enumerates supported types (company, drug) and clarifies it is the first step whenever a name needs an ID, setting it apart from the sibling tools that consume identifiers or provide profiles.

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?

It explicitly routes usage with 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and explains the covered entity types and input formats. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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