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 about data source (Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya), data granularity (Catalonia-specific), and scope (3,682 clinics with 5,057 professionals). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four tightly-packed sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second provides sibling differentiation, third gives data source. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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?

With comprehensive annotations covering safety and behavior, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, sibling differentiation, and data source context without redundant information.

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 three parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema coverage. Baseline 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 searches Cataluna's official dental clinic registry with specific statistics (3,682 clinics, 5,057 professionals). It distinguishes from sibling search_regcess by specifying this is Catalonia-specific data from the Generalitat's Open Data, not nationwide.

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?

Explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'For nationwide dental clinic search, use search_regcess with center_type='clinica_dental''. This directly addresses alternative usage with a named sibling tool and specific parameter value.

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