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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that the response carries a SHA-256 content-integrity receipt and warns that owner confirmation is not independent verification, which is a trust caveat an agent cannot infer from 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the core action comes first and the integrity caveat follows. The final clause is compressed almost to the point of ambiguity, which is the only cost.

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 the return payload (entity plus integrity receipt) and the trust model. It omits how to obtain the slug, not-found behavior, and what 'published' or 'owner-confirmed' concretely guarantee, so an agent has gaps before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required 'slug' parameter, and it does not mention the parameter at all. It gives no hint of slug format, origin (presumably from list_confirmed_entities), or behavior on an unknown slug, leaving only the regex pattern in the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Read one published entity' plus its 'SHA-256 content-integrity receipt'. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_confirmed_entities, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one' signals single-record retrieval versus the list_* siblings, and the tool name echoes the sibling family. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g., obtain slug via list_confirmed_entities first), and no when-not guidance.

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