search_entity

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that fuzzy matching is enabled by default and pagination is supported, along with failure behavior. This supplements the annotations well without contradiction.

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?

Three concise, well-structured sentences covering purpose, usage scenarios, and failure handling. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

While usage and failure are well-covered, there is no description of the output/return structure. Given no output schema, this is a notable omission. Also, no mention of other sibling tools like lei_lookup or search_by_bic that might be relevant.

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% with each parameter described. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it states fuzzy is default, which matches schema default). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search' and resource 'legal entities', with specific features like fuzzy matching and pagination. It explicitly differentiates from sibling 'autocomplete' by directing users to use autocomplete for quick name suggestions.

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN examples ('find company X', 'search for X') and FAILS WHEN conditions, including fallback advice to try autocomplete or check spelling. This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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