FREE preflight for entity_evidence: check a request and see the price and guarantees before paying. Retrieves nothing and costs nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| fields | Yes | ||
| max_age_days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: it is free, performs no retrieval, and incurs no cost. This gives an agent a reasonable safety profile. It could further explain what 'guarantees' means or any side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sentences with no filler. The key differentiators ('FREE', 'preflight', 'Retrieves nothing and costs nothing') are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential context: parameter semantics, definition of 'guarantees', and explicit guidance on how this relates to the sibling call. For a non-trivial 4-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is incomplete.
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 mentions no parameter names or meanings. The agent is left to guess what 'fields', 'name', 'domain', and 'max_age_days' represent or how they affect the validation. Given the low coverage, the description must compensate and fails to do so.
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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource phrase ('FREE preflight for entity_evidence') and clarifies the action: check a request and see price and guarantees before paying. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool by stating 'Retrieves nothing and costs nothing.'
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 positions this as a preflight step to run 'before paying,' which clearly implies using it prior to the paid sibling entity_evidence. It stops short of explicitly stating when to use entity_evidence instead, so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusionary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one performs the actual evidence retrieval, the other is a free preflight validation that retrieves nothing. No overlap or confusion possible.
Both tools share the same base 'entity_evidence' with an explicit '_validate' suffix for the preflight. This is a consistent, predictable pattern.
At only 2 tools, the surface feels thin for a domain covering both enrichment and verification. While the main tool is comprehensive, the lack of additional operations (e.g., bulk queries, field-specific requests) makes the count borderline.
The main tool delivers evidence-backed company facts with field-level detail, and the preflight covers the paywall concern. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch processing or explicit source listing, but the core verification workflow is fully covered.