US Business Entity Check

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the no-effect-on-terminal-states rule, which is exactly what makes the idempotent hint meaningful, plus the fact that updated run details come back. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the state constraint, and every prose sentence earns its place. The 'USAGE EXAMPLES' block of raw user_input lines is mostly decorative and pads the definition slightly.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still notes that updated run details are returned. For a two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage, only auth requirements are unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so both parameters and the 30-second graceful-abort timeout are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'gracefully' via an example, adding no syntax or semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Abort) plus resource (Actor run) and a state qualifier ('currently starting or running'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like call-actor and get-actor-run. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('stop a run that is taking too long or misconfigured') and an explicit no-op condition (terminal statuses such as SUCCEEDED, FAILED, ABORTED, TIMED-OUT). It does not name an alternative tool or describe prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the summary vs. nextStep semantics, and that waitSecs blocks for up to 45s (default 30) before returning the current state. This is substantive added value, though it doesn't cover error/failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then segmented into Returns/USAGE/EXAMPLES blocks. Every line carries information, though the two usage examples are somewhat redundant with the USAGE prose, adding minor 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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need only orient the agent, which it does fully: purpose, when to use, wait semantics, and concrete invocation examples. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by framing waitSecs as a blocking/wait mechanism with its cap and default, and by describing what runId's run produces. Slight above-baseline value over the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Actor run') and enumerates the returned result fields (status, storages, stats, summary, nextStep). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like call-actor or abort-actor-run, so it falls just short of the 5 benchmark.

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 USAGE block names the condition ('check the status of a run started by any Actor-running tool') and explains when to pass waitSecs > 0 to block until terminal. It gives clear context but stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the sibling to use for other run operations.

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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: returns rows themselves, default limit of 20, and clean=true behavior. It also clarifies the nature of the return value beyond the schema.

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?

Well-structured with clear USAGE and USAGE EXAMPLES sections. Some redundancy ('Get items (rows)...' and 'Returns the rows themselves...') but overall efficient and front-loaded with purpose.

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 tool has 8 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately covers key behaviors, usage triggers, and examples. It doesn't explain every parameter but relies on the schema for that, which is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining default limit (20) and the clean=true shortcut, which supplements the schema. It also provides examples for fields usage, though most parameter semantics are in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets items (rows) from a dataset and explicitly distinguishes it from metadata, counts, or schema. It names the exact resource (dataset items) and the action (get), and provides direct trigger phrases for when to use it.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('when the user provides a datasetId and asks to retrieve results...'), and clarifies what it is not for (metadata, counts, schema). However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, only implies them.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the exact key name is required, and the response preserves the original Content-Encoding with most clients decompressing automatically. That encoding note is real operational value an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a short behavioral note, then usage. The USAGE line slightly overlaps the first sentence, but the examples earn their space by showing realistic inputs. No filler.

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 an output schema present there is no need to describe return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: exactness of the key, allowed value types, and the encoding caveat.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds a semantic constraint the schema omits — that the key must be an exact match — and the examples show the 'username~my-store' form of the store ID, gently reinforcing the ID format.

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?

Specific verb (get) + resource (value under a key in a key-value store) with an explicit scope boundary: 'a single record, not a listing of all keys.' None of the sibling tools overlap with this resource, and the anti-scope clause removes any ambiguity about whether it enumerates keys.

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 USAGE line gives a clear triggering condition — retrieving a specific record (JSON, text, or binary) — and two concrete examples anchor it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but no similar sibling exists to route against.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: per-company pricing ($0.004 found / $0.0005 no-match), 'no API key' requirement, and that mismatches/similar names never count as a match. It does not explain the destructive/side-effect nature implied by the annotations, but the cost model and matching semantics are real added value.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words; the generic 'calls the Actor and retrieves its output results' lead is boilerplate but brief, and the substantive Actor description follows immediately. Front-loading the actual capability would have been marginally better.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes the key fields. It communicates pricing, state coverage, matching behavior and no-auth-required, which is sufficient for a 6-param, single-required-param verification tool. Only usage routing relative to siblings is missing.

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 100% and each of the 6 parameters (states, waitSecs, companies, includeSimilar, includeInactive, maxMatchesPerCompany) is documented in detail in the schema itself. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the billing note ('one result, one charge per entry'), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Actor description states a specific verb, resource and scope: 'Verify a US company is registered and active from official state registry open data (NY, CO, OR, CT, TX)'. It also enumerates the result shape (verdict, legal name, registry ID, status, entity type, formation date, address), which distinguishes it at a glance from the generic Apify plumbing siblings (get-actor-run, get-dataset-items).

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?

Usage is only implied by the subject matter: it is the tool you use when you need to confirm a US company's registration. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to or away from any sibling (e.g. how it relates to get-dataset-items for fetching more results). The 'Company records only' line is a mild scope exclusion.

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