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 return fields (name, address, phone, etc.), coverage statistics (5.5M entities, 34 countries, Spain depth), and verification status inclusion. 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?

The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: first states purpose and parameters, second details return fields, third provides coverage context. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 has rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, return fields, and coverage scope without needing to explain parameters or output format that are already documented elsewhere.

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 5 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that 'sector' and 'location' are searchable fields without providing additional format or constraint details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('ENTIA's verified entity registry'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it searches across multiple sectors and locations rather than being specialized like 'search_dental_clinics_cataluna' or 'verify_vat'. It explicitly mentions the scope of 5.5M entities across 34 countries.

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 context by stating it searches 'by name, sector, and location' and mentions Spain has deepest coverage, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. specialized siblings like 'search_dental_clinics_cataluna' or 'entity_lookup'. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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