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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description reveals what the response contains: published relationships with sources and dates, evidence rows, cross-graph same_as links by shared identifier, candidate matches on other graphs, and pointers to deeper views. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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 a single dense sentence, but each clause adds a distinct data category and the tool's purpose is front-loaded. It could be split for readability, but there is no filler or redundant restating of the name.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return contents and does so at a category level. It is missing details on limit semantics and how the 'deeper views' are referenced, but it is adequate for a broad lookup tool whose annotations already cover safety and idempotency.

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 dfx_id format and the include choices are documented, and the description maps to those categories. However, schema coverage is only 40% and three limit parameters (event_limit, evidence_limit, relationship_limit) have no defaults or behavioral notes beyond their names, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly defines the tool's scope: one DFX id and the complete set of data DFX holds about it—card, relationships, events, evidence, same_as links, and name candidates. It distinguishes itself from the many narrow get_* and search_* siblings by framing it as 'One answer to show me everything on X'.

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?

It states the entry condition ('For any DFX id') and the intended use case ('show me everything on X'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer a specialized search/get tool, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to route general entity lookups here.

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