verify_enterprise

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 the rate limit (30 requests/day) and lists return fields, but does not explain behavior on errors (e.g., not found), authentication needs, or whether the tool is read-only (readOnlyHint not provided).

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 concise with two sentences plus a use-case list. It is front-loaded with purpose and every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields and use cases. The tool is low complexity (2 params, no nested objects). However, it could mention error handling or prerequisites for completeness.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 queries Chinese enterprise registration info by name or credit code, lists return fields (company name, legal representative, etc.), and provides use cases (due diligence, background check, KYC). It distinguishes from siblings like query_enterprise_risk through specific focus on basic registration info.

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 explicitly states use cases (due diligence, background check, KYC) and mentions a free tier limit. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or explicitly name alternatives among siblings.

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