search_entities

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that the tool returns verified entities and lists the fields. It could further disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, but the provided details are adequate for a search tool.

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 well-structured with sections for when to use, returns, and parameters. It is informative but slightly lengthy; a more concise wording could improve readability.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return fields comprehensively. It addresses all key aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: q, country (with default ES), sector (with examples), city, and limit (with range). It adds value beyond the schema by providing context and defaults.

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 browses the entity registry by name, sector, or city, and provides concrete examples like 'find me a dentist in Madrid'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., entity_lookup) by focusing on broad search rather than specific lookups.

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 specifies when to use the tool with example user queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like entity_lookup, which would help an agent decide between them.

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