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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as behavior on missing entities, response size, or error states. For a read-only tool, the description provides minimal extra transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it may be too minimal, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Every sentence earns its place but more could be added.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, many siblings, and a non-trivial output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on how to specify the entity (ID vs query vs name), what the output includes beyond mentions, and how it differs from similar tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 60%, with the required 'author' parameter lacking a description. The tool description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a named entity and a sample of mentions. The verb 'get' and objects 'entity' and 'mentions' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like find_mentions or search_entities, which may overlap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., find_mentions, search_entities). No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints provided. Usage is entirely implied.

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