veroq_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost (1 credit), the return structure (array of briefs with headline, confidence, category, summary), and provides an example. It implicitly indicates this is a read operation with no side effects.

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 very concise at 6 lines, uses clear section headers ('WHEN TO USE', 'RETURNS', 'COST', 'EXAMPLE'), and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, return format, cost, and an example. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

There is only one parameter 'name', which is fully described in the schema. The description adds an example usage { 'name': 'Elon Musk' }, which provides context but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'intelligence briefs', and the scope 'specific entity'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on entity coverage across all briefs, which is unique among the many tools.

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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section that tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool: when tracking coverage of a person, organization, or place. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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