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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already provided, the description still adds substantive behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Google crosscheck is disabled remotely' (disabling an input flag), 'Provider agreement is not local identity proof' (semantic caveat), and what is withheld ('Public prose, aliases, external links and media'). It does not contradict any annotation. Slightly less than 5 because the output shape remains vague and 'canonical audit' is left undefined.

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?

Six short sentences are front-loaded with a purpose statement, which is good, but several are cryptic fragments whose meaning cannot be recovered (e.g., 'bounded direct-record admission without recursive content certification' and 'identity evidence and uncertainty remain separate'). The structure is fine but the content is not earning its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description takes partial credit for naming what is returned (contradictions, evidence, uncertainty) and stating withholding policy. However, with zero parameter documentation, an undefined envelope type, and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this tool correctly.

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% across four parameters, including a free-form nested 'envelope' object and three options (refresh, max_candidates, google_crosscheck) that have no prose meaning. The description never mentions any parameter by name, explains what an envelope must contain, or clarifies what refresh or google_crosscheck actually do, so it fails to compensate for the total 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Canonical audit of one existing Wikidata QID against one local identity envelope') and mentions an output ('returns contradictions, evidence and uncertainty'), so the purpose is intelligible. But it is not differentiated from siblings like kg_discover_identity or kg_resolve, and jargon like 'local identity envelope' is never defined, leaving the agent unsure what this tool actually produces.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. Sibling tools kg_discover_identity, kg_resolve, and kg_entity exist and are never referenced, so the agent gets no help choosing among them. The line 'New entities use bounded direct-record admission' gestures at a boundary but does not name the tool that handles new entities.

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