vera_entity

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost ($0.03 USDC via x402) and returns (NIT/CNPJ, status, etc.), but lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral info is partial but non-trivial.

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 convey purpose, registries, outputs, and cost without extraneous words. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description omits the additional countries (CL, PE) present in the input schema, creating inconsistency. It also does not explain how to use the optional 'name' parameter or the full set of registries. For a tool with no output schema, this leaves gaps.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It implies 'identifier' maps to NIT/CNPJ and 'country' determines the registry, but does not explain the 'name' parameter. The description adds some semantics but is incomplete for the optional name field.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'Company enrichment from LATAM public registries' and lists specific registries (RUES CO, CNPJ BR, RFC MX) and return fields (NIT/CNPJ, status, representative, industry). It distinguishes itself from siblings (vera_context, vera_rates, vera_sanctions) by focusing on entity enrichment.

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 implies usage for company enrichment but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The mention of LATAM registries gives context, but no guidance on prerequisites or conditional use.

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