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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the return content (contradictions, evidence, uncertainty) and a real behavioral limitation ('Google crosscheck is disabled remotely'). It does not explain the effect of refresh or max_candidates, hence not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, result and scope front-loaded, no filler. The caveats are dense but each conveys a distinct constraint rather than restating the name.

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?

For a tool taking a nested, schema-undocumented envelope and producing no output schema, the description should say more about what the envelope requires and what refresh/max_candidates do. It adequately signals the return contents, but the input contract remains largely a black box.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and there are 4 parameters, including a nested open envelope object (additionalProperties: true) with no shape documented anywhere. The description clarifies only one parameter indirectly (google_crosscheck is disabled remotely) and does not explain refresh, max_candidates, or what an envelope must contain, leaving most of the call contract undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'canonical audit of one existing Wikidata QID against one local identity envelope.' The 'existing' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the discovery sibling kg_discover_identity, though it never names it. Clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by 'audit of one existing Wikidata QID' (i.e., use when you already have a QID to validate), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus kg_discover_identity, kg_resolve, or kg_lookup_entities, and no stated prerequisites. The caveats ('provider agreement is not local identity proof') hint at intent without routing the agent.

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