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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantive context: prose, aliases, URLs, media and references are withheld, admission is 'bounded direct-record', and identity evidence/uncertainty stay separate. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields, even if cryptically worded.

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 jargon-dense and self-repeating: 'prose, aliases, URLs, media and references are withheld' is restated as 'Public prose, aliases, external links and media are withheld'. Four sentences where two would do, and none are front-loaded around what the tool returns.

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 no output schema, four parameters at 0% schema coverage, and a non-obvious tool name, the description should carry the load but does not explain parameter meaning or return shape. It is incomplete for an agent that needs to construct a correct call.

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% and the description explains none of the four parameters. The clause about 'identity evidence and uncertainty remain separate' loosely gestures at the evidence param, but id, lang, and props (with its maxItems limits) are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 phrase 'Bounded structured facts for one Wikidata QID' names a resource and scope, so an agent can infer this retrieves entity facts by QID. But it lacks a clear verb (retrieve/read) and never contrasts itself with close siblings like kg_lookup_entities or kg_search, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as kg_lookup_entities or kg_search. The only quasi-guidance is an implicit 'for one QID' scoping, which is not enough to route the agent between sibling tools.

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