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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return structure (voxel_lead, canonical_role, class-specific cluster, graph references, provenance_chain, canonical surfaces) and explaining the stable schema_id convention, which helps an agent understand what to expect without contradicting any annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it lists the output fields, explains schema_id, and gives usage context. It is structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, avoiding repetition or generic 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?

With an output schema available, the description is more than sufficient. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to use it, and why it is the canonical cite source, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'slug' with examples and discovery instructions (list_entities, /entities hub). The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond referring to 'a named entity,' so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full structured dossier for a named entity' and explicitly enumerates entity types (actor, organization, ordinance, project), distinguishing it from sibling describe_* tools for corridors, meetings, patterns, places, watches, and zoning signals. It also frames it as 'the canonical citable artifact,' making its unique role clear.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use when grounding a citation, when reasoning about an entity's full role across the corpus, or when traversing the entity graph from a single name.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over sibling describe_* tools for other resource types.

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