entity-screen

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It describes the action but omits behavior on failure, required permissions, or side effects. As a read-like operation, it does not confirm non-destructive nature or error handling.

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?

Single sentence of 26 words, front-loaded with main action and specific output identifiers. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema, description lists returned identifiers (ticker, CIK, UEI, DUNS, NPI). Missing structure details and error scenarios, but adequate for a simple one-parameter 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?

The description adds that 'name' accepts entity names OR tickers, beyond the schema's 'Entity name or ticker'. With 100% schema coverage, this clarifies input flexibility and links to output identifiers.

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 clearly states the tool resolves entities and returns canonical identity plus linked identifiers. It specifies regulatory datasets and identifier types (ticker, CIK, UEI, DUNS, NPI), but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'screen_entity'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling 'screen_entity' exists but no comparison or selection criteria provided. 'Use to cross-walk' is implicit but lacks explicit when-not or context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses multiple data sources (SEC, USAspending, etc.), checks for exclusion, recalls, and absence signals, and describes output (risk score with evidence). However, it omits details like latency, rate limits, or whether it is read-only.

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?

Two well-structured sentences that front-load the main purpose and then detail functionality. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Tool complexity is low with one parameter. Description adequately covers input, process (sources checked), and output (risk score with evidence). No missing elements given the lack of output schema.

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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds general context about the entity type but does not add specifics beyond the schema's description of the parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'Screen' and the resource 'entity for risk', specifying the action and context. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'resolve_entity' by focusing on risk assessment.

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 provides clear context by stating 'before onboarding', indicating when to use. It implies a difference from the sibling tool but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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