ENTIA Entity Verification

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the data source (Ministerio de Sanidad via VUDS), current record counts (523K REPS + 44K dentists + 3.5K psychologists), and what each record includes (full name, colegiado number, etc.). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but adds substantial operational context.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences provide useful context about registry scope, record contents, and data sources. Some details like exact record counts could be considered slightly excessive, but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, scope, data sources, record contents, and current statistics - everything needed to understand when and how to use this search tool effectively.

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 already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'colegiado number' and 'specialty' which align with the query parameter, but provides no additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation.

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 searches Spain's professional registries for verified healthcare practitioners, specifying the resource (REPS registry with 2.5M professionals) and scope (doctors, dentists, pharmacists, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_dental_clinics_cataluna' (clinics vs practitioners) and 'verify_healthcare_professional' (verification vs search).

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 about when to use this tool (searching for healthcare practitioners in Spain's registries) and mentions data sources and current harvest counts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'search_reps_by_specialty' or 'verify_dentist' for comparison.

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