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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: matching is exact and case-insensitive, which tells the agent it will not do substring or fuzzy matching. It stops short of saying what happens on zero or multiple matches.

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?

A single, front-loaded clause with no wasted words; the matching rule comes first. It is economical, though arguably so terse that it omits the disambiguation outcome an agent would want.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations plus full schema coverage carry much of the load. The real gap is behavioral: for a tool explicitly framed around disambiguation, the description never says whether multiple same-name records are returned as a list or how ambiguity is resolved.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond it by specifying that the name parameter is matched exactly and case-insensitively, which the schema's terse 'Full record name.' does not say. It adds nothing about the kind enum, but the schema already enumerates and describes that.

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 states a specific lookup operation (exact full-name match, case-insensitive) on records, which is clear enough to distinguish it from a generic 'search'. However, it never names the sibling it competes with (e.g. search) or the record kinds covered, so differentiation is only implied by the phrase 'for disambiguation'.

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?

'For disambiguation' implies the usage context (use when you need a unique exact hit rather than a fuzzy result), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. The agent must infer the contrast with search/get_entity on its own.

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