vera_entity

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields and cost ($0.03 USDC via x402), but omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. It provides some transparency but is incomplete.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes purpose, scope, return fields, and cost. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values. It does not detail the output structure or all params, but it is sufficient for a straightforward enrichment tool. Slight gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking country codes to registries (RUES CO, CNPJ BR, RFC MX) and implying identifier formats, but the 'name' parameter is unexplained. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 it provides company enrichment from LATAM public registries, specifying the verb 'enrichment' and resource 'company'. It lists specific registries and return fields, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like vera_rates and vera_sanctions, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 gives context (LATAM registries) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no exclusions or scenarios described.

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