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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing dedup semantics (per-corpus counts deduplicate each record), a seed-specific quirk (subject/person seeds also include publications), and return characteristics (ambiguity, cited samples). These are real behavioral details not present in structured fields.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the count/return mechanics. Slightly terse and jargon-dense, but every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description does sketch return content (ambiguity, cited samples, per-corpus counts), which helps. However it omits any usage framing and doesn't explain how 'connected through shared records' is determined, leaving the agent to guess when this tool beats its graph/entity siblings.

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 100% and the schema already documents the pivot semantics for each entity_type in detail. The description only echoes the entity categories covered by the enum, adding no format or value syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource — subjects, people, places and projects connected through shared records — so the agent can infer a relationship-discovery tool. But it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb ('find', 'pivot') and never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_entity_graph or resolve_entity, which also concern entity connections. Purpose is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent gets no help deciding between find_related, get_entity_graph, or resolve_entity for a given entity question.

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