frankiefin

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools are clearly separated by Create/Update/Delete/Query prefixes, but the sheer number of Create/Update variants for documents and IDs, along with overlapping terms like 'Check', 'Search', and 'Query', creates boundary ambiguity. Descriptions help in most cases, but an agent could easily pick the wrong variant when dealing with entities vs organisations or document details vs full document scans.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a PascalCase Verb+Object pattern such as CreateEntity or DeleteDocument, which is readable. However, tools like InternationalBusinessProfile, BusinessOwnershipQuery, EntityMonitoring, StatusCheck, and notifyResult break the pattern with noun-first names or inconsistent casing and word order, making the naming mixed rather than uniform.
Tool Count2/5
At 46 tools, the surface is well beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 and even beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The domain is broad, but many tools are variations of the same create/update operation and could likely be consolidated via parameters or narrower tool groupings.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers full CRUD-style lifecycles for both documents and entities, plus state management, checks, IDV, reporting, and service status. Some gaps exist, such as no dedicated list/report operations and no obvious way to update document check results, but most workflows can be completed through Query/Search and Update variants.
Average 2.6/5 across 45 of 46 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update Entity States' with no mention of side effects, permissions, reversibility, state transitions, or what distinguishes this mutation from other update tools. The agent cannot infer the behavioral contract.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. Three words that restate the tool name convey no useful information and do not earn their place as an explanatory description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of entity-related sibling tools and the absence of annotations and output schema, a one-line tautology is completely inadequate. The agent cannot understand what entity states are, what updating them involves, what inputs it accepts, or what result to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no schema/parameter gap that the description must compensate for, though the description still adds no operational meaning about how the update is scoped.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Entity States' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'UpdateEntityState'. It uses no specific verb beyond 'update' and no resource detail beyond 'Entity States', so it is a tautology rather than an explanation. With many sibling tools like UpdateEntity, UpdateEntityGetIDVToken, and UpdateCheckEntity, the description provides no way to distinguish this tool from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use UpdateEntityState versus any of the many sibling tools. No context is provided about prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios that would select this tool. The description is entirely silent on usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description 'Resolve Duplicate States' discloses no behavioral traits: no side effects, no permissions, no state changes, no return behavior. This is entirely opaque for an agent that needs to understand what invoking this tool will do.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but under-specified: three words do not earn their place because they fail to convey the operation's purpose or behavior. This is closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details, the description alone must carry full context. 'Resolve Duplicate States' is too incomplete to tell an agent what the tool does, when to call it, or what result to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and schema coverage is effectively 100%. The rubrics baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Resolve Duplicate States,' which is vague and does not clearly state that the tool flags a duplicate entity. It conveys a duplicate-related action but lacks a specific verb and resource, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like UpdateEntityState or BlacklistEntity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any of the many entity-related siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral context such as whether this is a read or write operation, whether it has side effects, what 'verification' means, or what happens after creation. The full burden falls on the description, which does not carry it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The phrase is short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no structure, no context, and the few words provided do not earn their place by adding useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter constraints, the description is the only guidance available. 'Create and Verify Entity' is too sparse to fully inform an agent about what to expect, how to invoke the tool, or when it is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed for selection or invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create and Verify Entity' essentially restates the tool name and provides no specific resource or behavior. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like CreateEntity, QueryEntity, or CheckOrganisation, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternatives should be chosen instead. Given many similar sibling tools, an agent receives no help selecting this over CreateEntity, VerifyDocument, or CheckOrganisation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states only that a document is created, with no information about side effects, permissions, required inputs, output behavior, or irreversible actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It provides no useful content beyond the tool name, so the single sentence does not earn its place in a meaningful way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not clarify what 'Document' means here, how this tool differs from sibling creation tools, or what happens when it is invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed given zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Document' is essentially a word-for-word restatement of the tool name 'CreateDocument'. It identifies the broad action and resource but provides no distinguishing detail, especially given numerous sibling tools like CreateScanDocument and CreateProcessIndustryUtilityDocument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool rather than any of the many document-related siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or contextual conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, token lifecycle, idempotency, permissions, or whether any state changes are permanent. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but brevity is under-specification here, not effective conciseness. It is a sentence fragment that merely repeats the name and provides no additional structure or context to help an agent act.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description is still not complete enough. It lacks any explanation of what an IDV token is, why an agent would call this over the many similar entity tools, or what the outcome of the call is. The surrounding sibling list shows a rich domain, and this description does nothing to orient the agent within it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description's failure to mention parameters is not penalized because there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Entity and Get IDV Token' is essentially the tool name with spaces inserted. It restates the name rather than adding any gloss on what an IDV token is, what entity creation entails, or how this differs from the many sibling entity tools. This is tautological rather than clarifying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like CreateEntity, UpdateEntityGetIDVToken, or CreateCheckEntity. The description only restates the action and gives no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails completely. It merely states 'Delete Entity' without mentioning that deletion is destructive, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects may occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no substance beyond the tool name and fails to use the available space to convey meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the destructive nature and consequences of the operation. It does neither, leaving an agent without enough context to safely invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter details for the description to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Entity' exactly restates the tool name 'DeleteEntity', making it a tautology. It does convey a generic delete operation, but offers no detail about what entity is deleted or how this differs from sibling tools like DeleteDocument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling entity tools such as CreateEntity, SearchEntity, QueryEntity, or UpdateEntity. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The vague '(re)retrieve' hint at a possibly idempotent operation, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what response the caller should expect. This is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Though the description is short, it is under-specified rather than economically complete. The single sentence contains no actionable information beyond a restatement of the name, so it does not earn its place in any meaningful way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must define the object being retrieved and the typical workflow context. It does neither, and the large sibling list further emphasies that an agent has no way to understand why or when RetrieveResult would be called.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the calibration baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is as good as needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '(Re)retrieve Response Result.' essentially restates the tool name 'RetrieveResult' and does not define what a 'Response Result' is or where it comes from. It is tautological and fails to distinguish this tool from any of the many sibling tools such as StatusCheck or notifyResult.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description neither states a use case nor mentions any conditions that should lead the agent to invoke it instead of a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses nothing beyond the word 'Search' — no read-only indication, no return behavior, no side effects, no context about entities or result semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The phrase is short, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It has no structured information, no context, and no guidance, so compactness provides no real value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details, the description is the only information source and it covers almost nothing. An agent cannot determine what an entity is, what a search returns, or how to interpret the result. The definition is far too sparse to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema and description need no param disambiguation. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description simply restates the tool name ('Search for Entity' = SearchEntity) without any detail on what an entity is, what kind of search is performed, or what criteria are used. It does not help distinguish SearchEntity from similar siblings like QueryEntity or SearchDocument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of QueryEntity, QueryEntityFull, InternationalBusinessSearch, or other search-like siblings. No preconditions, filters, or alternative routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, prerequissites, or state-transition consequences. It only repeats the update operation and reveals nothing about destructiveness, idempotency, or allowed transitions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but comes across as under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It has no structural elements like context, examples, or differentiation, and the words largely parrot the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description is far too incomplete. It lacks state transition details, relation to UpdateCheckClassResults, error/return behavior, and any clue about when the tool applies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter semantic gap for the description to fill. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools aplies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Check Result State' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, swapping 'Class' for 'State' without explaining what either means. It does not identify what a 'Check Result State' is, what states are valid, or how this differs from the near-identical sibling UpdateCheckClassResults.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. With many sibling update tools, especially UpdateCheckClassResults, an agent has no basis to select this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a multi-step behavior ('update' plus 'OCR') but does not explain effects, prerequisites, or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose what happens during OCR or update processes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it reads as a fragmented phrase rather than a coherent sentence. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by adding meaningful information beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that is essentially a restatement of the name, the tool is completely underspecified. An agent cannot know what inputs are expected, what the tool does functionally, or what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema requires no documentation. The description's mention of 'Update and OCR' gives some minimal hint of the tool's operation, but since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description reads as a series of fragments—'Update and OCR Scan Document'—which lacks a clear verb+resource statement. It does not specify what exactly is updated or how OCR is applied, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like UpdateScanDocument or QueryDocument. It is effectively a tautology of the tool's name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as CreateScanDocument, UpdateDocument, or QueryDocument. Without any context, an agent cannot determine the appropriate conditions for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Push Notification Payload' does not state whether this tool sends a notification, retrieves one, constructs a payload, or performs some other behavior. No side effects, return behavior, or safety profile is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides almost no structured information for an agent to act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters, the tool is inadequately specified. With 44 sibling tools and no output schema, an agent cannot tell what notifyResult does, what it returns, or how it relates to similar tools like RetrieveResult. The description does not provide enough context for reliable selection or invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema already documents everything. With no parameters to explain, the description need not add parameter semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Push Notification Payload' is a noun phrase that roughly restates the tool name rather than stating a specific action. It does not name a verb, resource, or outcome, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like RetrieveResult or StatusCheck.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about the intended calling scenario, and the long sibling list only increases the need for explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, return values, errors, or whether this is a read-only status request.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains almost no information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool being simple with no parameters, the absence of annotations and output schema makes the minimal description insufficient. An agent cannot know what a successful response looks like, what statuses are reported, or how this fits with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies because no meaning needs to be added beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Service Status' essentially restates the tool name StatusCheck and provides no verb or actionable resource. It gives no differentiation from the many sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any sibling tool. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or context cues to help an agent select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires confirmation, what side effects occur, or what happens if the document does not exist. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It contains only a restatement of the tool name and provides no useful operational context, so the single sentence does not earn its place as a valuable addition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive zero-parameter operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the document is identified, what is deleted, whether the action is reversible, what is returned, or what permissions are required. An agent could not safely call this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for no-parameter tools applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and it does not misrepresent any parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Document.' simply restates the tool name with no additional detail. It names a verb and resource, but adds no scope, object identification, or distinction from the many sibling document tools, so it functions as a tautology rather than a clarifying description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of CreateDocument, UpdateDocument, QueryDocument, DeleteEntity, or any other sibling. The destructive intent is implied by the verb, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only indicates a mutation and mentions verifying details, but gives no information about side effects, idempotency, required prior state, or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short but not effectively concise: both phrases are vague and essentially echo the tool name/action. 'Verify Details' adds no concrete information, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than purposeful writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is the only source of context, and it is nearly empty. An agent cannot determine the operation's effect, expected inputs, results, or how it relates to the large set of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and parameter count is zero, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the zero-parameter baseline makes this acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Update Entity and Verify Details', which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what a CheckEntity is or what verification entails. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like UpdateEntity or UpdateCheckEntityPushToMobile, so the purpose remains ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as CreateCheckEntity, UpdateEntity, QueryEntityChecks, or UpdateCheckEntityPushToMobile. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation and initiation of a process but does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the entity or IDV process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but its brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It simply restates the tool name and offers no elaborated structure, so it does not help an agent understand the tool beyond what the name already says.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a seemingly consequential operation involving both an entity update and IDV process initiation, yet there is no context about prerequisites, relationship to other IDV-token tools, expected behavior, or outcomes. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin to support correct tool selection or invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4 even without parameter-specific elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Update Entity and Initiate IDV Process' adds no new information beyond the name 'UpdateEntityInitIDVProcess'. It identifies broad actions but does not specify the exact operation or distinguish it from siblings like UpdateEntity, UpdateEntityGetIDVToken, or CreateCheckEntity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given the large sibling list with similarly named entity/IDV tools, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over UpdateEntityGetIDVToken or UpdateEntity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. The words 'Update' and 'Verify' imply mutation and checking, but there is no mention of side effects, auth requirements, return values, or failure behavior, which is especially important for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It merely repeats the name and does not use the available space to provide useful structure or elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, no parameters, and a single phrasal description, the tool is effectively undefined. Given a large set of similar document tools, this description does not give an agent enough information to select or invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% trivially, so there are no parameter details the description must explain. The zero-parameter baseline applies because there is no parameter semantics to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update and Verify Document.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no specifics about the operation. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like UpdateDocument, VerifyDocument, or UpdateCompareDocument, so an agent cannot determine the intended behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as VerifyDocument or UpdateDocument. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, side effects, and expectations. It only adds the word 'EXPERIMENTAL!' and the generic verb 'Search', which vaguely implies a read operation but does not state whether it mutates state, requires authentication, returns summaries or full documents, or has pagination/limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but the core sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name and the exclamation marks add noise. It is not padded or overly long, but it does not earn its place by providing substantive information beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a family of similar document tools, the description should clarify what results look like, what 'search' means in this context, and how it differs from QueryDocument or QueryDocumentFull. None of this is present, so an agent cannot safely and correctly invoke the tool beyond guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'Search For a Document' merely restates the tool name and adds no detail about search criteria, scope, or return values. It does not differentiate the tool from sibling tools like QueryDocument or QueryDocumentFull, so an agent cannot determine what makes this search distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use SearchDocument versus QueryDocument, QueryDocumentFull, or SearchEntity. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says the tool updates an entity and gets an IDV token, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, token handling, or what the operation actually returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and contains no filler, but it is a bare phrase rather than a structured explanation. It is concise but at the cost of being minimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the IDV token is, how it relates to the update, or what the caller should expect. The ambiguous overlap with sibling tools makes this incompleteness more damaging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly does not invent parameters, matching the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Entity and Get IDV Token' is essentially a spaced-out restatement of the tool name 'UpdateEntityGetIDVToken'. It provides no additional meaning or detail, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like CreateEntityGetIDVToken or UpdateEntityInitIDVProcess.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Initiate Switching of Utility Plan' implies a state change but reveals no effects, side effects, auth requirements, reverrsibility, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single short sentence offers little decision value for an agent selecting among similar tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description alone must convey context. It does not mention return values, side effects, permissions, or relationships to sibling tools. The tool is not adequately specified for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter noise because there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states an action ('Initiate Switching') and a resource ('Utility Plan'), so there is some verb+resource clarity. However, it does not explain what 'Switching' entails, how it relates to the document, or how it differs from siblings like UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocument or UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocumentConsent. The meaning remains ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many related document and utility update tools. There are no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving an agent to guess based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies both a mutating action ('Create') and a read action ('Query'), but gives no detail on side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, or what happens when invoked. The 'AUS Only' restriction is the only additional behavioral constraint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short to the point of under-specification. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and the ambiguous 'Create...and Query' structure obscures meaning. Brevity is not helpful when it sacrifices necessary clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of guidance. It fails to explain what UBO is, why a creation step is mentioned, what the tool returns, or how it differs from CreateEntity and SearchEntity. An agent cannot confidently select and invoke this tool based on this text.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter descriptions to supplement, and the description does not mislead about parameters. However, it also does not explain where inputs such as the business entity come from, so it does not exceed baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific domain (Business Entity, UBO) and a geographic restriction (AUS Only), but it bundles two verbs—'Create' and 'Query'—without explaining which is the primary operation or how they relate. The tool name suggests query, so the description adds ambiguity rather than resolving it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage signal is 'AUS Only', which implies a geographic restriction but gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like InternationalBusinessSearch, SearchEntity, or CreateEntity. It neither states the intended use case nor excludes alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Create New Entity' simply restates the operation name and offers nothing about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, response format, or consequences. For a mutation tool this is severely insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative: every word duplicates the tool name. There is no fluff, but also no added value beyond the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling set and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description leaves an agent without information about the result of the call, preconditions, or how this differs from neighboring entity tools. It is minimally viable at best, but substantial context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The schema already covers the full interface at 100% coverage, and with 0 params no additional semantic description is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'Create' + 'New Entity', indicating a creation operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like CreateCheckEntity or CreateEntityGetIDVToken, and gives no detail about what constitutes an entity. It is clear at a surface level but lacks distinguishing context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling creation tools such as CreateCheckEntity, CreateEntityGetIDVToken, or CreateDocument. An agent has to infer selection from the name alone. This is a clear gap in usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a create action and a verify action, but does not explain side effects, whether the operation mutates state, auth needs, or what 'verify' means in this context. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no schema or annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and contains no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single vague sentence does not provide enough structure or front-loaded scoping to help an agent act correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, this description is the only source of context, yet it fails to explain core semantics or differentiate VerifyDocument from many sibling document tools. An agent cannot know whether this creates, verifies, or updates, nor why to call it instead of CreateDocument or QueryDocument.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4; the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses concrete verbs ('Create', 'Verify') and identifies the resource ('Document'), so it is not a tautology. However, it is ambiguous whether this tool creates a document, verifies one, or does both, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like CreateDocument or UpdateVerifyDocument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as CreateDocument, QueryDocumentChecks, or UpdateVerifyDocument. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided, so an agent cannot reliably choose between the many document-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only says 'Set,' which implies a mutation without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the state change actually does. The description does not disclose whether this is a simple flag toggle, a monitored state change, or an action with downstream consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than helpfully concise. It adds almost no information beyond what could be guessed from the tool name, so it does not earn its place as a meaningful explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the tool is semantically ambiguous enough that more context is needed. There is no mention of what 'watchlist state' means, what the expected result is, or how the target entity is identified. The description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and there are no parameters to document, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but that is acceptable because there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific action and resource (set watchlist state for an entity), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is vague: it does not say whether this adds the entity to a watchlist, removes it, toggles it, or what state values are possible. It also does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like BlacklistEntity or UpdateEntityState.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that operate on entities, such as BlacklistEntity, FlagDuplicateEntity, and UpdateEntityState, the agent has no basis for selecting WatchlistEntity over those tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation and OCR processing but does not describe permissions, reversibility, what OCR does to the document, or what the response looks like. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with no filler, but it is so terse it borders on under-specification. It offers a fragment rather than a structured explanation, so while concise, it does not fully serve its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description fails to explain what happens after creation/OCR, what is returned, or how this tool fits into the broader document workflow. An agent cannot confidently select this tool based on the provided context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for zero parameters is met.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create and OCR') and the resource ('Scan Document'), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it does not explain what a Scan Document is or how it differs from the generic CreateDocument sibling, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus CreateDocument, UpdateScanDocument, or any of the other document-related siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update Existing Entity' implies mutation but does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the existing entity's properties. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it mostly restates the tool name ('Update' + 'Entity') with only 'Existing' adding minimal meaning. It is concise but borderline tautological and does not earn its place with useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the empty schema, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of similar sibling tools, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits what inputs are actually needed, what the update covers, and what response to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The 100% schema coverage plus zero-parameter baseline supports a score of 4; however, the description does not clarify how the target entity is identified, which is a contextual concern rather than a parameter-semantics one.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a verb ('Update') and resource ('Existing Entity'), which is minimally clear and distinguishes it from CreateEntity via the word 'Existing.' However, it does not differentiate among the many sibling update tools such as UpdateEntityState, UpdateEntityGetIDVToken, and UpdateCheckEntity, leaving the exact scope of this update vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool rather than the numerous sibling update/create/query variants. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so an agent cannot decide between UpdateEntity and UpdateEntityState based on this description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a document and compares it to an original, which implies a side effect, but it does not explain what 'original' refers to, whether the original is modified, or what side effects the creation has. The agent lacks enough behavior detail to predict consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the core actions are front-loaded. While terse to the point of vagueness, the structure itself is concise and efficient for a zero-parameter tool. The phrase 'Create Document and Compare to Original' does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations, an output schema, or any parameter context, the description should say more about what 'Original' means, what inputs are needed, and what the tool returns or modifies. The sibling list includes many related document operations, making the lack of clarifying context especially costly. The description is too incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters in the schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description offers no misleading parameter information. The tool seems to rely on implicit context, but that is outside the parameter-semantics dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('Create Document and Compare to Original') and a resource ('Document'), so it is more than a tautology. However, it ambiguously presents two verbs ('Create' and 'Compare') without clarifying whether creation is the main purpose or a preliminary step. It also does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling document tools like CreateDocument or VerifyDocument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use CompareDocument instead of sibling tools such as VerifyDocument, SearchDocument, or UpdateCompareDocument. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative workflows, or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer the use case from the terse phrase alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states that it creates a document and runs a comparison; it does not mention side effects, whether the document is persisted, what data source is used, whether consent is needed, or how this relates to the sibling consent/switch tools. The description is minimally informative and no behavioral context is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, which aids quick reading. However, the phrasing is terse to the point of vagueness; it simply restates the action implied by the name and omits important qualifiers. There is room to add a clarifying clause without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears to be part of a multi-step process (given siblings like UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocument and UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocumentConsent), yet the description gives no workflow context, inputs, or expected outcomes. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left with insufficient information to know what the comparison involves or what happens after the document is created.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is explicitely 100%. There are no parameter details that need explanation, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description makes no misleading claims about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action: 'Create Document and Run Utility Price Comparison.' It names the specific resource (document) and the specialized behavior (utility price comparison), which differentiates it from generic siblings like CreateDocument and CompareDocument. However, it does not clarify what a 'Process Industry Utility Document' is, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as CreateDocument, CompareDocument, or UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocument. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided. An agent must guess whether this combined tool or the separate create/compare tools should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Retrieve Document Details' and does not clarify whether this is read-only, what data is returned, whether it requires IDs, or how it differs from QueryDocumentFull and QueryDocumentChecks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, which is concise. However, it is closer to under-specification than to efficient completeness, because it omits almost all decision-relevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling set of document tools with overlapping names, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not state return behavior, input expectations, or how this tool relates to QueryDocumentFull, QueryDocumentChecks, or VerifyDocument, so an agent cannot confidently select it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, zero parameters receives a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Retrieve Document Details," making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like QueryDocumentFull or QueryDocumentChecks, so the purpose is clear only at a basic level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a read operation but no other behavioral traits are disclosed, such as scope, response format, or limitations. The three-word description adds no context beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three words and contains no fluff. However, it essentially restates the tool name and does not add enough substance to be considered efficiently informative, so it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of sibling tools with overlapping names, a three-word description is insufficient for confident selection. There is no output schema to compensate, and the description does not clarify what 'Entity Details' includes or how it differs from 'Full' variants like QueryEntityFull. The agent cannot tell when this tool is the right choice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description needs to explain about parameters. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Retrieve') and resource ('Entity Details'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like SearchEntity or QueryEntityFull, which likely also retrieve entity information. This prevents full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as SearchEntity or QueryEntityFull. The agent must guess usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says an existing document is updated; it does not mention permissions, overwrite behavior, idempotency, side effects, or failure modes. The word 'Existing' adds slight scope but little real behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. However, it is so skeletal that it does not provide enough substance to be a strong tool definition, especially given the large sibling set.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though there are no parameters and no output schema, the surrounding sibling set includes many specialized update tools and there are no annotations, so an agent needs more context to know which document workflow this belongs to. The description leaves that ambiguity unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter details for the description to add. With zero parameters, a 4 is the appropriate baseline because nothing is left undocumented by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Update') and target ('Existing Document'), so an agent can tell at a high level that this modifies an existing document. However, it gives no detail that would distinguish it from sibling tools such as UpdateCompareDocument, UpdateScanDocument, or UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocument, so it does not reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related document-update siblings. No scenarios, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, so the description does not support tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits, but it only states high-level actions ('Create' and 'Push'). It does not mention whether this sends a real notification, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are needed, whether it mutates existing data, or what happens after the link is pushed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and contains no filler words, putting the primary action first. It is more of a title fragment than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces clarity but does not waste space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with side effects, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, this description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what input context is used, what success looks like, what side effects occur, or how this differs from the alternative entity/check tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4, and the description does not contradict or add confusion about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('Create Entity') and an additional outcome ('Push Self-Verification Link'), so it is not a tautology and gives a basic sense of what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools such as CreateEntity or CreateCheckEntity, and it omits the 'Check' and 'Mobile' elements present in the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like CreateEntity, CreateCheckEntity, or UpdateCheckEntityPushToMobile. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or hints about which scenario should route an agent here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states 'Set ... Status.' It not disclose whether this activates or deactivates monitoring, whether it is reversible, whether an existing entity is required, or what side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no wasted words and the action word first. It earns conciseness credit, though the brevity contributes to the underspecified behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation-like tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, this description is underspecified: an agent can't know what status values are possible, what the response will be, or what preconditions exist. The shape is simple, but completeness still falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter meanings to explain; the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add anything about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb 'Set' with a specific resource ('Entity Ongoing AML Monitoring Status'), which makes the core action clear and separates it from query-focused siblings. However, 'Status' is vague (enable or disable? what values?) and the description doesn't explicitly contrast with closely related list/watchlist mutators, so it isn't a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over siblings like UpdateEntityState, WatchlistEntity, or BlacklistEntity. No exclusions, no alternate-routing statements, only the name's implicit suggestion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' but says nothing about authentication requirements, read-only semantics, output shape, error behavior, or data size expectations. It is not misleading, but it is also not informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no redundant information. It earns a 4 because it is concise, though slightly under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools, so the description needs to clarify what result the agent can expect and how this query differs. It covers only the basic retrieval intent and leaves those important details unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and has no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are needed for this tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Retrieve') and a resource ('Document and Scan Data'), so the core operation is understandable. However, it does not explain how QueryDocumentFull differs from the sibling QueryDocument or what 'Full' adds, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus QueryDocument, QueryDocumentChecks, VerifyDocument, or RetrieveResult. The tool name implies a broader scope, but the description itself provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It suggests a read-only retrieval operation but does not describe return content, error behavior, side effects, or whether results are scoped to specific entities. The description is not misleading, but it is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The typo 'Verication' and lack of punctuation are minor quality flaws, but the structure is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter retrieve tool, the missing piece is mainly the return behavior, especially since no output schema exists. An agent can invoke it, but it cannot confidently interpret the result or choose it over similarly named sibling tools. The description is technically sufficient to attempt a call but not to use the result correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and schema description coverage is effectively complete. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters in this case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve Entity Verification Check Details.' It is understandable despite the typo 'Verication.' However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling query-like tools such as QueryDocumentChecks or CheckOrganisation, so some sibling ambiguity remains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to call this tool rather than the many sibling tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions the AU-only limitation and the new-or-existing organisation target, but does not reveal whether running reports creates or updates records, returns data synchronously, triggers external reporting, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler and the key scope constraint included. It could be slightly clearer by explaining what 'Report(s)' means or replacing 'new or existing' with a more natural phrase, but it is efficiently sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears the burden of telling the agent what happens when the tool runs. It does not explain which reports are available, how results are returned, whether any parameters are expected at runtime, or whether the operation has side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds target context by specifying 'new or existing organisation entity' and AUS Only, which is all that can be expected here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Run Report(s)' against an 'organisation entity', and adds an AUS-only scope. It is specific enough to separate it from general entity/document tools, though it does not say what kind of reports are produced or how it differs from business-query siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BusinessOwnershipQuery, InternationalBusinessProfile, or the many document tools. The AUS-only and organisation-entity hints imply a use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Update' and 'Batch', which adds little beyond the tool name; it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, permission-gated, or how it affects existing check result states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the batch qualifier is useful context. It is efficient, though the phrasing closely mirrors the tool name and leaves operational details unexplained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is the primary interface for the agent. Yet it only restates the operation at a high level, omiting what 'check result states' are, how the batch is selected, what side effects occur, and when the agent should choose this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter descriptions to compensate for, and the word 'Batch' hints that individual parameters are not required because the operation applies to multiple pre-selected items.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('Check Result States'), with a batch qualifier. It is not a pure tautology because it adds 'States' and 'Batch' to the tool name. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling update tools such as UpdateDocument or UpdateVerifyDocument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like UpdateDocument, UpdateScanDocument, and UpdateVerifyDocument appear in the list, but nothing explains why an agent should pick UpdateCheckClassResults for a given situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects and safety behavior. It only states that an update and comparison occur; it does not say whether the update is destructive, whether the original is modified, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the comparison fails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is concise without being entirely tautological, though the lack of supporting context makes the brevity a double-edged sword.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, an agent has insufficient information about how to invoke the tool, what the result represents, or whether the operation is safe. The presence of similarly named siblings increases the risk of selecting the wrong tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty, so there are no parameter descriptions to compensate for; the baseline for zero parameters is a 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema declares no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names an explicit action, 'Update Document and Compare to Original,' which conveys that this tool performs an update followed by a comparison. This distinguishes it from standalone siblings like UpdateDocument and CompareDocument, though the exact semantics of 'Original' and the comparison outcome are not defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over UpdateDocument, CompareDocument, or other siblings. The wording hints at a combined update-and-compare workflow, but no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Update Document and Run Utility Price Comparison' implies a mutating write plus an analysis step, but it does not say what gets overwritten, whether prior document content is destroyed, what dependencies exist, or what the result looks like. This is insufficient for an operation that likely modifies a user's document.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler words. It is concise but terse to the point of underspecification, and it combines two actions into one undifferentiated phrase rather than clearly structuring the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, this description is the only source an agent has. It lacks essential context: what specific document is affected, what 'update' mutates, how the price comparison is performed, and how this relates to the many sibling document tools. The definition is not complete enough for safe autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate on parameter-wise. It also cannot explain how the document is selected, which would have helped, so it does not earn a 5. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states two actions: updating a document and running a utility price comparison. However, it uses the generic 'Document' rather than identifying the process-industry utility document from the tool name, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like UpdateDocument or UpdateCompareDocument. A- is acceptable: clear verb+resource, but no sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocumentConsent, UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocumentSwitch, UpdateDocument, and CompareDocument suggest different workflow steps, but nothing here explains where this step fits or what conditions select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only action, but the description does not reveal response shape, error behavior, auth needs, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant filler. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is too minimal to fully orient an agent. It does not explain how the business profile is identified, what the response contains, or how this tool relates to nearby sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema coverage is 100% and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, though it remains unclear how the target business is selected without any parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('business profile'), and adds the scope 'from any country (AUS included)'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling InternationalBusinessSearch, but the task of retrieving a profile is reasonably differentiated from searching or querying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like InternationalBusinessSearch, BusinessOwnershipQuery, or CheckOrganisation. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutating write operation, but nothing is disclosed about side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what values the blacklist state can take — a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four words — 'Set Entity Blacklist State.' — front-loaded with the verb and free of any filler. Every word earns its place; the terseness is a completeness problem, not a conciseness problem, and is scored elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete, but the semantic gap versus WatchlistEntity, the unstated mechanics of what blacklisting does, and the unexplained absence of parameters to identify the target entity leave an agent guessing about correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to add beyond the schema. The vacuous 100% coverage and zero-param baseline apply; the description loses no points here, though it also never explains how the target entity is identified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: it sets the blacklist state of an entity. This separates it from obvious siblings like CreateEntity, DeleteEntity, and SearchEntity, but the semantically close sibling WatchlistEntity is not differentiated, leaving some ambiguity about what distinguishes blacklisting from watchlisting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like WatchlistEntity and UpdateEntityState overlap semantically with this tool, and the description does not name any alternative, exclusion, or condition that would help an agent pick between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation ('Run KYC/AML Checks') but does not disclose whether this action is read-only, whether it creates or updates records, whether it is asynchronous, or whether it has side effects. An agent cannot judge safety or expected consequences from this text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the action and target are immediately visible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation, but with no output schema and no annotations it fails to explain what the agent should expect after running the checks or whether further steps are needed. There are clear gaps around return values and operational behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; with 0 parameters the baseline for this dimension is met.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource: KYC/AML checks on an Organisation and/or Associated Individuals. This makes the tool's core purpose reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like CreateCheckEntity or QueryEntityChecks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With many sibling tools available, an agent is left to infer whether this should be preferred over entity-focused check tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not say what the response contains, whether permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or what kind of 'check details' are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the verb plus resource are front-loaded. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise and well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is trivial to invoke because it takes no arguments, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what details are returned. Given the large sibling tool set, a bit more context about the exact scope of the returned verification checks would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. With 100% schema coverage and an empty properties object, parameter semantics are essentially a non-issue.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('Document Verification Check Details'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as QueryDocument, QueryDocumentFull, or VerifyDocument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent is given no help deciding between QueryDocumentChecks and the other document-query/verification siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Retrieve' does convey a read-only intent and separates it from the many update/create/delete siblings. However, it does not disclose anything about authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, what 'Full' adds over a normal query, or whether document scan data is returned inline or as a reference, so transparency is only partially satisfied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded phrase with no filler—every word contributes to scope. It is easy to parse, but it is also terse to the point of being a fragment rather than a structured explanation; a sentence clarifying output or usage would make it more valuable without ruining conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool the complexity is low, but the description still leaves important context out: it does not mention that the tool returns combined entity and document-scan information, whether the operation depends on an already-selected entity, or how this differs from QueryDocumentFull/QueryEntity. With no output schema and no annotations, the bare phrase is too thin for an agent to reliably decide when to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap to fill. Under the zero-parameter policy, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter semantics, giving it a baseline of 4. It would only need a 5 if it added extra context about implicit inputs or state dependencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with a compound resource: 'Entity Details' and 'Document Scan Data.' This makes the core action clear and distinguishes it from siblings like QueryEntity (entity only) and QueryDocumentFull (document-focused) by combining entity data with scan data. It loses the fifth point because it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, and 'Document Scan Data' remains somewhat ambiguous without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as QueryEntity, QueryDocumentFull, or QueryEntityChecks. The only implied guidance is from the tool name and the phrase itself—agents might infer it is for a full entity+scan lookup—but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is effectively no usable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names two actions (update and push) but does not explain side effects, permissions, whether the pushed link replaces a previous one, or what 'push to mobile' actually entails. This is a minimal summary, not a transparent behavioral description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single economical phrase with no filler, and it places the primary action first. For a tool with no parameters, this is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The definition is minimally viable for a zero-parameter tool: an agent can grasp the general operation. However, it lacks context about the mobile destination, prerequisites, and the exact entity-state change, and there are no annotations or output schema to fill those gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and no further parameter documentation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear action phrase ('Update Entity and Push Self-Verification Link') and names the outcome, so an agent can identify the core operation. It partially distinguishes from related sibling tools like UpdateCheckEntity by adding the push action, though it does not explicitly mention the 'CheckEntity' target and could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as UpdateCheckEntity or CreateCheckEntityPushToMobile. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and short description; there are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection clues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Search' implies a read-only operation and the geographic-scope detail is useful. However, it does not disclose output format, result-limiting behavior, or whether any side effects exist, though for a search tool the risk is modest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could add sibling differentiation or result hints, but the brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter search tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the empty schema and lack of output schema, the description states the core purpose and scope adequately. It still leaves ambiguity about how a search is initiated without parameters and what a successful result looks like, so an agent may lack enough context to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and no required parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter-specific detail. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; there is nothing missing to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a verb ('Search') and resource ('a business') plus geographic scope ('from any country'), so an agent can tell this is a business-search operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from InternationalBusinessProfile or other sibling tools, but the search-vs-profile distinction is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over InternationalBusinessProfile or the many other sibling search/query tools. No exclusions, alternatives, or usage context are provided, so the agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral effects. 'Provide Explicit Consent' implies a state change, but it does not say whether consent can be withdrawn, whether the switch happens immediately, or what other side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the target clearly, which is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and target. It is still thin on process context: it does not explain where this consent step fits relative to document creation or switching tools, or what happens after consent is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%. There are no parameters requiring explanation, so the description correctly adds no parameter-level detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb-object construction: 'Provide Explicit Consent' to switch utility plans. It adds a qualifier that separates it from generic update or switch tools, though it does not explicitly tie the consent to a specific document or process step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when explicit consent is needed before a utility-plan switch. However, it gives no when-not-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools such as UpdateProcessIndustryUtilityDocumentSwitch or CreateProcessIndustryUtilityDocument.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frankiefin MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ktmcp-cli/frankiefin/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ktmcp-cli/frankiefin)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frankiefin MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ktmcp-cli/frankiefin/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ktmcp-cli/frankiefin)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ktmcp-cli/frankiefin'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server