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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: the legal requirement for colegiado numbers, the data source (Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Dentistas de Espana), and the return format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by legal context, usage guidance, return values, and data source. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The structure flows logically from what the tool does to why it matters.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns:' statement), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, legal significance, usage, returns, and data source without needing to detail output structure.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'name_or_colegiado' can be either identifier type, which is already covered in the schema's description field. 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 specific action ('verify if a dentist holds a valid colegiado number'), identifies the resource ('Spain's official Consejo General de Dentistas registry'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing exclusively on dentist verification (unlike verify_healthcare_professional or verify_psychologist). The mention of '44,306 verified dental professionals' further clarifies scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to verify any dental professional's credentials' and 'A dentist CANNOT legally practice in Spain without a colegiado number.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (credential verification) versus alternatives like search_dental_clinics_cataluna or professional_lookup.

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