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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by calling results 'candidates' and mentioning 'explicit non-verification caveats,' which warns that results are not verified facts. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps calibrate agent trust in the output.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then lists the normalized data fields without wasted words. The long serial list is slightly unwieldy but still compact and informative. It earns its place by conveying the tool's breadth in one sentence.

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 simple input schema, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for a caller: source (Wikidata), license (CC0), candidate/non-verification status, and the normalization surface. It could be more complete by mentioning how max_results or language affect behavior, but the overall package is sufficient for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. organization_name is only implied as the search term, while language and max_results receive no semantic guidance at all. Since the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation and does not, this is a clear gap.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'CC0 Wikidata organization candidates', then enumerates the normalized fields (websites, inception dates, identifiers, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling entity-search tools like research.lei-entity-search and research.ofac-entity-search by naming Wikidata and the normalization scope.

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 makes the intended context clear: searching Wikidata organization candidates and normalizing organization-related fields. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the Wikidata/CC0 framing gives enough context for an agent to select it over SEC/OFAC/LEI search tools.

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