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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit `unresolved` labeling instead of omission, and `figi_candidates` returned when a name matches multiple instruments. These are non-obvious behaviors that materially affect agent expectations.

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 information-dense, with every sentence adding critical nuance (input formats, source behaviors, failure modes). It is front-loaded with examples and the primary use case. While not as terse as ideal, the volume of disambiguation justifies the length.

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?

Given the complexity (two entity types, multiple external sources, degradation, candidate lists), the description adequately covers all key behaviors an agent needs to call it correctly. No output schema exists, so it explains return elements like `unresolved` and `figi_candidates`. The annotations and schema fill in the rest, leaving no major gaps.

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?

The schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage) with detailed enum and descriptions. The description goes further by clarifying subtle semantics: for bonds, the input should be exactly the ISSUER name as printed, not the full noun phrase, and that ticker/CIK/ISIN/name are all acceptable. This prevents common agent errors.

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 the exact purpose: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It provides clear examples and explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'FIRST' step for name-to-ID resolution, differentiating it from sibling tools like entity_profile and 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and contextual scenarios (e.g., resolving tickers, CIKs, LEIs). It explains that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for specific cases or state when NOT to use it, so it's slightly short of a full routing guide.

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