Search Entities

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), description adds credit cost per jurisdiction and authentication needs. It clarifies the tool is discovery-oriented, which aligns with openWorldHint but doesn't contradict readOnlyHint (cost is a side effect).

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose/sibling differentiation, usage condition, cost/auth. No fluff.

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 usage context is strong, the absence of output schema means description should ideally hint at return value structure (e.g., list of entities with key fields). It doesn't, leaving a completeness 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?

Input schema already describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage). Description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 discovers candidate businesses when the exact entity is unknown, framing it as a listing/discovery tool, not a verification tool. It distinguishes from sibling verify_business by explicitly naming 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 when-to-use (browse/list, partial name) and when-not-to-use (specific company verification) with alternative sibling tool. Also mentions cost and authentication requirements.

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