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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'in detail', which is minimal. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't add meaningful behavioral disclosure like what fields are returned or whether the entity is a household-level aggregate.

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 extremely short (5 words), which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the resource type but provides no actionable detail. A single sentence can be both concise and informative; this one is merely short.

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

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there, and annotations cover safety. However, the description is too thin to be complete. It doesn't explain what 'entity' means in this domain, how it relates to list_households or list_family, or what makes this different from other get_* tools. For a tool with one parameter and no schema description coverage, the description should at least define the parameter's meaning.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented entity_id parameter. It does not. The description doesn't explain what entity_id refers to, how to obtain it, or what format it should be in. With only one parameter and zero schema coverage, the description's failure to clarify the parameter is a significant 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 'One household entity in detail' is vague. It identifies the resource (household entity) and implies a detail view, but it doesn't state a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like get_facility, get_real_asset, or get_document. The title 'Get entity' is nearly identical to the description, making it close to a tautology.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many get_* tools, but the description doesn't mention any of them or provide selection criteria. An agent cannot tell whether to use get_entity or get_facility without opening schemas or guessing.

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