find_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result cap (up to 5 matches) and the ranking rule (by exactness), which tells the agent how to interpret truncated or ordered results.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The identifier formats and result cap are front-loaded before the usage directive, so the agent gets the essential facts first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. For a one-parameter lookup tool, the description supplies everything needed: what to pass, when to call it, and what comes back.

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 0% for the single 'query' parameter, but the description compensates by enumerating accepted input forms and giving a concrete example ('CSCO'). It stops short of stating whether matching is exact or fuzzy beyond the ranking note.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Hub-Equity entities) plus the three accepted identifier forms (name, ticker, CIK). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_entity_profile, which consumes an entity_id rather than resolving one.

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?

"Use this first when the user mentions a company by name or ticker" gives an explicit trigger, and "you need the entity_id to call any other tool" states the prerequisite that routes the agent here before the other 20 sibling tools.

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