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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it discloses graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, that identifiers are source-labelled, that unresolved identifiers are returned explicitly under 'unresolved', and that ambiguous matches return 'figi_candidates' without asserting a single result. This richly characterizes behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 most sentences carry unique necessary information and the core instruction is front-loaded. The heavy use of nested parentheses makes it harder to scan, though the structure is justified by the tool's high 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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, supported entity types, source mappings, failure behavior, ambiguity handling, and fallback guarantees. An agent has enough information to know when and how to call it and what to expect back.

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 already 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning: accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), the distinction between implied ticker maps and name search, non-equity instrument resolution, and the critical warning to pass only the entity name and never the full noun phrase. This materially improves parameter understanding.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers' — and enumerates supported types (company, drug). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first stop when a name needs to become an ID.

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 says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which gives a strong usage condition. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context and examples make the intended invocation clear.

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