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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description still adds real value: records carry a canonical URL and a graded-dossier flag, and pagination is described mechanically (nextCursor present only when more results remain, same args plus cursor to continue). That is precisely the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the pagination instructions. Every sentence carries information, though the pagination sentence is long and could be split for scanning.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, nothing essential is missing: filtering, record shape, and continuation protocol are all covered. It goes beyond the minimum without padding.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the value source for the type/category filter (list_entity_categories holds the slugs) and the cursor continuation rule. Minor gap: it calls it a 'category slug' while the parameter is named 'type', which could briefly confuse an agent.

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 resource (GMM entity records, grouped by category) with a clear list semantics and an optional narrowing filter. It also distinguishes itself from list_entity_categories by pointing there for slugs, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Gives clear routing context: use list_entity_categories to obtain slugs before filtering here, and use cursor-based re-invocation to page. It does not explicitly contrast with search_entities, so the when-not-to-use case is left implicit.

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