investigar_entitat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the cross-source search behavior, mentions special handling for public bodies (searching awarded contracts), and states the output is a complete report. This provides sufficient behavioral context, though it lacks specifics on error handling or rate limits.

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 structured with a clear intro, bullet-like list of sources, and a summary of behavior. It is informative without being verbose, though slightly longer than necessary. Every sentence contributes value, so it earns a 4.

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 existence of an output schema (true), the description need not detail return values; it succinctly says 'Retorna un informe complet.' It covers inputs, search behavior, and the tool's purpose comprehensively for a cross-source investigation tool in a large set of siblings.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it emphasizes 'nom' as the primary identifier and that 'cif' ensures uniqueness, and clarifies 'limit_per_font' is per data source. This adds marginal value but doesn't significantly enhance the schema's information.

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?

Description clearly states it investigates an entity across ALL data sources, listing specific sources (contractes, subvencions, etc.) and includes special behavior for public bodies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cercar_contractes which are single-source, ensuring the agent understands its broad scope.

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 explicitly says 'Ideal per investigar empreses, persones o organismes sospitosos,' providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the contrast with sibling tools (single-source searches) implicitly guides the agent to choose this for comprehensive investigations.

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