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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: missing fields are marked TODO and 'never guessed', and a prior scan record is required. This data-honesty and precondition detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short sentences covering the produced artifact, the data-handling rule, and the precondition, with no filler. The leading noun fragment is slightly abrupt but the content is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 only one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description usefully describes what is produced (entities, SERVES relations) and how gaps are handled. It is close to complete for a low-complexity tool, missing only input format detail.

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?

There is one parameter ('domain') with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone documents nothing. The description only weakly implies the input via 'the domain's latest scan record' and never clarifies expected format (bare host vs URL). It does not fully compensate for the coverage gap, landing at the baseline.

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 identifies the resource it produces ('a starter entitymap.json') and its contents (name, phone, coordinates, service areas as entities with SERVES relations), so an agent understands the artifact. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment with no explicit action verb (the verb is only implied by the name 'fix_entitymap'), and it never differentiates itself from the 25 sibling tools.

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 supplies a precondition ('Needs a prior scan'), which is genuinely useful for deciding when the tool can be called. But there is no guidance on alternatives or when NOT to use it, so routing among siblings like scan_domain or resolve_domain is left to inference.

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