get_entity

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds real context beyond them: results are merged from all enabled sources with per-field provenance, the coverage field reports per-company availability, and registry text is flagged as data rather than instructions (a prompt-injection warning). It doesn't discuss rate limits or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input routing and sibling disambiguation. Dense but mostly earning its place; the trailing sentence 'The coverage in the result says, per company, which can be had' is slightly awkward and marginally redundant with the earlier provenance statement.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the returned profile fields, notes per-field provenance, and explains the coverage indicator. Combined with input routing and sibling boundaries, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds routing meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that entity_id/identifier must be used and that a bare name is not acceptable. It reinforces rather than duplicates the schema's identifier-scheme semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the identity profile of a legal entity', then enumerates exactly what fields are returned (names, identifiers, legal form, status, incorporation date, registered address) with per-field provenance. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the dedicated tools for officers, ownership, filings, insolvency and sanctions.

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?

Explicitly states the accepted inputs ('entity_id or an identifier, not a name') and routes the agent: 'use search_entities first if you only have a name.' It also enumerates which adjacent concerns belong to sibling tools, so the agent knows when NOT to call this one.

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