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

Adds substantial value beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it discloses that Google is disabled remotely, that new entities use bounded direct-record admission without recursive certification, that identity evidence and uncertainty remain separate, and that prose/aliases/links/media are withheld. These are non-obvious behavioral traits. It does not, however, explain the shape of the returned verdicts or how reason codes should be interpreted.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, which is good. But the following sentences are dense, jargon-heavy fragments ('bounded direct-record admission without recursive content certification') that are hard to parse and not clearly ordered by importance, adding cognitive load without proportional value.

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?

Covers the high-level mechanics (deterministic resolution, uncertainty handling, withholding of public fields, Google disabled) which is more than most definitions offer. However, with 21 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks enough to construct correct calls or distinguish this tool from its six siblings.

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 21 parameters, so the description bears the burden of explaining the evidence fields, yet it mentions only that 'local facts' are supplied. No parameter name (city, kind, aliases, existing_wikidata_qid, explain) is explained or exemplified; the prose about uncertainty separation is relevant but gives no per-field semantics.

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 deterministic resolution of one identity'. This distinguishes it from discovery-oriented siblings like kg_discover_identity, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly. An agent can infer the purpose but must guess at the boundaries with kg_lookup_entities and kg_audit_identity.

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 explicit when-to-use statements, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the seven siblings. The phrase 'from supplied local facts and Wikidata evidence' implies the caller has evidence to provide, but the description never states when resolution is preferred over discovery, lookup, or audit.

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