Four tools with clear action verbs and reasonable descriptions (avg 95 chars). All have input schemas with type definitions and parameter descriptions. However, output schemas are entirely undocumented, LLMs cannot predict what fields to expect from responses. Error handling is minimal (generic try-catch blocks returning plain text). No parameter constraints (enums, ranges, patterns) despite opportunities (e.g., jurisdiction should be ISO 3166-1 alpha-2). Tool descriptions lack dependency hints and prerequisites. No pagination guidance despite search tools that could return many results.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Define structured response objects with typed fields (e.g., {lei: string, legalName: string, jurisdiction: string, status: string, registeredDate: string}). Return JSON objects, not text blobs.
• Add enum constraints to jurisdiction and filing_type parameters. Use Zod enums: z.enum(['DE', 'GB', 'US', 'FR', 'NL', ...]) for jurisdiction; z.enum(['10-K', '10-Q', '8-K', 'S-1', ...]) for filing_type.
• Implement pagination for search tools. Add optional limit (default 20, max 100) and page parameters. Return total count and next_cursor in response. Document in tool descriptions.
• Enhance error messages with recovery guidance. Instead of 'Company search failed: HTTP 404', return 'No companies found for "Apple" in DE. Try: (1) search without jurisdiction filter, (2) use search_lei for exact LEI lookup, (3) verify spelling.'
• Add dependency hints to descriptions. E.g., search_company: 'Returns LEI codes. Pass LEI to get_company_details for full registration details.' This guides multi-step planning.