search_entities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds 'Supports fuzzy name matching', which is useful but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or default ordering. With annotations covering read-only, the description adds moderate value.

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 concise sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and key features.

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 search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the major dimensions: entity types, filters, and fuzzy search. It lacks details on default behavior when no parameters are given or result sorting, but is otherwise adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by name, type, or country, but this repeats schema info without adding new semantic details like accepted data formats or enum values.

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 uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (regulatory entities), lists entity types and filter criteria, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_filings or search_satellites.

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 states the tool searches regulatory entities by name, type, or country with fuzzy matching, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like search_screening or search_semantic.

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