ENTIA Entity Verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about searching 'ENTIA's verified registry' and the specific data returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each earn their place: stating the purpose, detailing the search source and return values, and listing use cases. There is no wasted text or 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 the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in description), the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and return data without needing to detail parameters or output format further.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying the tool uses 'sector' and 'city' for geographic zone searches, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., format details or examples not in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find', 'Searches') and resources ('competing businesses', 'ENTIA's verified registry'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on competitor analysis rather than entity lookup, verification, or specialized searches like dental clinics or pharmacies.

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 for usage ('competitive analysis, market density assessment, and zone mapping'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for competitor searches in a geographic zone by sector.

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