check_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot carry: which registries and screening sources are queried, and how to read the output flags ('trust_score 0-100, 100 = best', 'trust_level high means low risk'). It stops short of disclosing latency, cost, coverage limits, or why the call is non-idempotent.

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, front-loaded with what is checked and followed by what comes back, with no filler or repetition of the title. The output list is dense but each clause adds a distinct fact about coverage or return values.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly assumes the burden of naming the return keys (trust_score, trust_level, cluster, recommendation, confidence, top_factors, sources_checked) and explaining the two that would otherwise be ambiguous. The remaining gap is routing completeness — it never states when this beats get_trust_score or sanctions_screen for the same entity.

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 all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description only marginally extends this by tying the KVK register to NL companies and flagging the domain as conditional ('when you send it'); entity_name and country get no extra meaning beyond their schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Company check on a business') and enumerates the exact data sources consulted (sanctions screening, country risk, Dutch KVK register, website domain). That implicitly separates it from the wallet-oriented siblings (verify_wallet, check_agent_wallet), but it never explicitly positions itself against close cohorts like get_trust_score, sanctions_screen, or get_risk_score, which also return risk/trust signals.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance despite nine siblings with overlapping risk/trust semantics. The only conditional language, 'the website domain when you send it', describes an optional parameter rather than a usage condition, and nothing tells the agent which tool to pick for a wallet versus an entity.

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