search_entities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that matching is fuzzy (a real behavioral trait affecting result set size), but says nothing about result ordering, whether zero-match queries return empty vs. error, or any rate/limit behavior beyond the schema's per_page cap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. The trailing sentence about fuzzy matching partially duplicates the q parameter description, but the waste is minimal.

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 five-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search dimensions but never indicates what a result contains or which sibling (get_entity_profile, get_entity_dossier) consumes the returned entity, which is the natural next step in this tool family.

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 the schema already documents q, page, type, country, and per_page thoroughly, making 3 the baseline. The description adds little beyond repeating fuzzy name matching, and its prose list of entity kinds ('operators, manufacturers') does not match the schema's filter values (company, individual, government, corporation), which could mildly confuse an agent picking a type.

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 (regulatory entities), enumerates the kinds of entities covered, and notes fuzzy name matching. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_filings or search_sec_filings by resource, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from those search_* siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for resolving an entity by name, type, or country, but there are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g., get_entity_dossier, search_filings) for when this tool is the wrong choice.

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