get_dossier

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by disclosing the free tier limitation ('first ownership hop + latest financials'), the token/API key unlock mechanism, and provenance guarantees ('Every claim traces to a source URL'). It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but provides strong contextual behavior.

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 a solid paragraph without fluff. Each sentence contributes value: purpose, provenance, use case, id source, and tier/token details. It could be slightly shortened, but it is appropriately sized for a complex paid tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

For a complex dossier tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the dossier includes (cross-source records, ownership/control, UBO chain, risk signals), what the user gets on free tier, and how to unlock full depth. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but 'structured dossier' implies sufficient structure for the agent to proceed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about where the id comes from (search_entities) and where the token comes from (claim_dossier), plus the environment variable alternative. However, the schema already fully documents both parameters, and the description adds little beyond acquisition channels.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Build a structured, fully-cited intelligence dossier for one entity by id'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like search_entities ('Get the id from search_entities') and get_entity by emphasizing the comprehensive dossier nature and the 'tell me everything about X' use case.

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 an explicit use case ('Use this for "tell me everything about X"') and a prerequisite ('Get the id from search_entities'). It also explains free vs paid tiers and token acquisition, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, which is a minor gap.

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