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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources are unavailable, explicit treatment of unresolved identifiers under `unresolved`, the cascade through multiple endpoints, and the behavior for ambiguous matches (asserts nothing, returns figi_candidates). No contradiction with annotations.

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 but densely packed and efficiently front-loaded with example queries and the primary directive. Each paragraph builds on the previous one and adds non-redundant information. It is not concise in length, but every sentence earns its place; a 4 reflects that it is appropriately sized for the complexity, even though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

This is a complex tool with multi-source resolution, fallback behavior, and special cases for bonds and drugs. The description explains all of this, including the return format (e.g., figi_candidates, unresolved, labeled identifiers) even though there is no output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly, including edge cases and input constraints.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. However, the description adds critical semantics that go far beyond the schema: it explains how to format the `value` for bonds (issuer only, not the full phrase), gives concrete examples (AAPL, CIK, ISIN, drug names), and clarifies the meaning of different inputs (e.g., ISIN resolves to legal entity). This is exactly the kind of compensation expected when the schema is bare.

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 states a precise verb (resolve) and resource (user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers), with concrete example queries and a clear positioning as the first step when a name needs an ID. It is unambiguously distinct from the resolver's siblings (entity_profile, compare_entities) even though it doesn't name them, because it explicitly scopes to identifier resolution rather than profile or comparison.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and detailed input formatting constraints (e.g., pass only the entity name, not the full phrase). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the strong positional statement plus the type-specific instructions cover the practical decision points.

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