ENTIA Entity Verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about the data source (REPS registry), total record count, specialty breakdown statistics, and return format details. This enhances understanding beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The specialty breakdown with counts provides useful context, though some might argue it's slightly verbose. The return format is clearly stated at the end. Most sentences earn their place, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent context. It explains the data source, scope, specialty details, and return format, making it complete enough for the agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing specialty options with counts, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 registered healthcare professionals by specialty, specifying the exact resource (523,166 REPS professionals) and verb (search). It distinguishes from siblings like 'professional_lookup' or 'verify_healthcare_professional' by focusing on specialty-based filtering rather than individual verification or general lookup.

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 when searching for healthcare professionals by specialty, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'professional_lookup' or 'verify_healthcare_professional'. It mentions the data source (REPS registry) which gives some context, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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