ENTIA Entity Verification

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds valuable context about data sources (Open Data portals), specific region coverage, and exact pharmacy counts per region, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, specific region data breakdown, alternative tool guidance, and data source attribution. Every sentence adds value, though the region-by-region pharmacy counts could be slightly condensed.

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 comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It clearly explains the tool's geographic scope, data sources, and relationship to sibling tools, making it fully sufficient for agent understanding.

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 already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 registered pharmacies across Spain's autonomous communities, specifying the exact regions covered (Madrid, Castilla-La Mancha, Euskadi, Navarra, Cantabria) and distinguishing it from the sibling search_regcess tool for nationwide coverage. It provides specific scope and data sources.

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 states when to use this tool (for searching pharmacies in the 5 listed autonomous communities) and when to use the alternative search_regcess tool (for nationwide coverage with center_type='farmacia'). It provides clear guidance on tool selection based on geographic scope.

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