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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it describes the markdown-plus-structured-data response, fact anchors, grades, recordRevision, and that the content is GMM's own graded research rather than company-supplied material.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains dense with useful detail about citations and provenance. Every sentence contributes to understanding the returned content or how to cite it, with no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not exhaustively describe return values, and it already covers the key content types and citation semantics. The main missing element is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the description is otherwise complete for a read-only entity lookup.

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 100%, and the schema documents both slug and lang, including the enum for lang. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 fits.

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 a specific resource and scope: one entity's researched record, returned as a markdown dossier plus structured data. It is clearly a single-entity retrieval tool rather than a list/search tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_document or get_page_markdown.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_page_markdown, get_document, or search_entities. The reader can infer it is for fetching a known entity by slug, but the routing guidance is absent.

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