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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: identifiers are labelled with their source, unresolvable identifiers are exposed under `unresolved` rather than omitted, LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully, and each call cascades through multiple endpoints. It also documents ISIN-to-LEI resolution and that non-equity instruments without tickers still resolve. 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 information-dense but poorly structured—the 'company' type is a long run-on parenthetical mixing input formats, output fields, and edge cases into one complex clause. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and length is arguably justified by complexity, but the organization would be far clearer with bullet points or separate sentences for each concern.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining return values—and it does. It enumerates returned identifiers (CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI with ownership, FIGI, RxCUI/ingredient/brand/citation), describes the `unresolved` field, covers graceful degradation, and gives input constraints. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real parameter meaning beyond the schema: it states that `value` for company accepts ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name (ISIN is not mentioned in the schema), explains the exact-ticker vs name-search resolution path, and clarifies that non-equity instruments without tickers still resolve. This adds semantic value for an agent choosing what to pass.

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 specific verb-resource pair: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It lists example user queries and explicitly positions itself as the name-to-ID tool, distinguishing it from siblings that consume those IDs. This is more than a vague statement—it tells an agent exactly what job the tool performs.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also reinforces this with 'using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups.' However, it does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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