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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool is a getter and reveals that the returned definition includes a JSON schema constraint for its descriptor. It does not cover potential error behavior, permissions, or any side effects, but for a simple read operation the main behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the resource, the lookup key, and the notable output detail.

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 simple getter with three required parameters, the description captures the core purpose and a key aspect of the return value. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no guidance on how to discover valid entity types or how this relates to sibling tools like listDefinitions. The description is sufficient but not thorough.

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 67%; the 'type' parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description partially compensates by saying the tool retrieves a definition 'by type.' The session_id and context parameters are already thoroughly described in the schema, so the description adds little beyond clarifying the role of 'type.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one entity type definition by type.' It also explains what the definition includes ('the JSON schema its descriptor must satisfy'), which clarifies the tool's output. It is clear enough to distinguish from listDefinitions, though it does not explicitly differentiate from every sibling.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a single entity type definition identified by its type. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as listDefinitions or getEntityDescriptor, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but not fully guided.

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