ENTIA Entity Verification

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context by detailing the four specific node types returned (WebPage, Business Entity, Verification Report, Territorial Profile) and referencing the source URL, enhancing understanding of the tool's output structure and data provenance.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of return data and a URL reference, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (retrieving structured data), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It details the four node types returned and provides a URL for context, compensating adequately without needing to explain return values or behavioral traits already covered by annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all four parameters (country, sector, city, slug). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema provides complete information.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get') and resource ('complete JSON-LD @graph for an ENTIA-verified entity'), distinguishing it from siblings like entity_lookup or verify_* tools by specifying it returns structured data with four specific node types rather than basic lookup or verification results.

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 implies usage for retrieving full structured data for verified entities, with context from the URL example suggesting it's for detailed entity profiles. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like entity_lookup or search_entities, which might return simpler results.

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