ENTIA Entity Verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context about data source (Ministerio de Sanidad), scope (120,486 centers, all of Spain), and center type breakdown, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details 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 well-structured and appropriately sized, starting with the core purpose, then providing scope details, type breakdown, and data source. The center type list is comprehensive but could be more concise. Most sentences earn their place by adding valuable context about the registry's scope and composition.

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 (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers registry scope, data source, center type breakdowns, and national coverage, making it complete for a search tool with good structured data support.

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 documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description provides context about the data being searched (healthcare centers with specific type breakdowns) but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The 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 searches Spain's official REGCESS registry of 120,486 healthcare centers, specifying it's the authoritative national registry covering all of Spain. It distinguishes from siblings like search_healthcare_centers and search_pharmacies by emphasizing comprehensive national coverage rather than regional or type-specific searches.

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 Spain's official healthcare registry with national coverage) and implicitly distinguishes it from regional tools like search_dental_clinics_cataluna. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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