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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavior beyond the schema: the 3-candidate default, the 5-candidate cap, and the fact that Google and fallback are disabled remotely — a real constraint an agent would otherwise discover only by failure.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded. The disabled-provider note is appended rather than integrated into the introduction, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers the most consequential constraints (limit cap, disabled providers) but leaves several parameters and the shape of the returned candidates unexplained. Adequate, not complete.

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 coverage is 0% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it explains limit semantics (default 3, max 5) and the state of provider/fallback, and 'place/type filtering' gestures at two more. But lang, query and the exact interaction between place and type are left undocumented.

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 names a specific verb+resource: retrieving Wikidata entity candidates by name, with place/type filtering. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as kg_entity, kg_lookup_entities or kg_resolve, which likely return entities too.

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 reach for this tool over the sibling lookup/resolve tools. The only routing hint is the operational note that Google and fallback are disabled remotely, which tells the agent what not to pass rather than when to use the tool.

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