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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine output-shape context beyond that: results are capped at 12 properties and 3 evidence properties and include ranks, qualifiers and references, which tells the agent this is a compact rather than exhaustive fetch.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the result limits, with essentially no wasted words. It is slightly elliptical in the opening clause, which costs a point.

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, the description does describe the return shape reasonably (properties with ranks, qualifiers, references). However, it omits the lang parameter's effect, defaults, and the behavior when optional filters are omitted, leaving gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 schema documents none of the four parameters. The description partially compensates by implying the props and evidence parameters and their caps (12 and 3) and the single-QID id, but it never explains lang or what happens when props/evidence are null.

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 the resource (facts for one Wikidata QID) but uses a vague phrasing rather than a clear verb, so it is not immediately obvious whether it retrieves, summarizes, or resolves an entity. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like kg_lookup_entities or kg_resolve, which an agent would plausibly confuse with this tool.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kg_lookup_entities or kg_search, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the 'one QID' scope.

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