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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description earns credit for adding behavior beyond them: it is deterministic, returns identity verdicts with reason codes, and surfaces uncertainty. The note that Google is disabled remotely is valuable operational context an agent can't get from annotations. It stops short of describing pagination, latency, or failure modes.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the purpose and then the return shape and the Google limitation. No filler. The 'Google is disabled remotely' phrasing is slightly cryptic but earns its place as an operational caveat.

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 21-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does more than most by sketching the return shape (verdicts, reason codes, uncertainty). However, with 0% schema coverage it leaves the parameter contract essentially undocumented, which is a substantial gap for a tool this complex.

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 carries the full burden and largely fails it. It gestures at 'local facts' and 'Wikidata evidence' but never explains what name, kind, venue, role, aliases, or the existing_* IDs mean or how they influence resolution. An agent must guess at nearly every field.

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: resolving one identity from local facts plus Wikidata evidence. This distinguishes it reasonably well from kg_discover_identity and kg_audit_identity, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly. The core purpose is clear without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like kg_discover_identity or kg_audit_identity, which an agent must choose between. The only directional note is 'Google is disabled remotely,' which reads as a limitation rather than a selection rule. Context is implied but not stated.

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