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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context beyond annotations: it reveals the machine-layer URL structure, the exact data format (JSON-LD @graph), and the 'fail-closed' behavior that prevents confusion with corporate marketing. This is precisely the kind of behavioral detail annotations alone cannot provide.

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 extremely dense and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence identifies the exact action, resource, and URL pattern. The second sentence provides critical usage guidance (path sourcing) and behavioral guarantee (fail-closed). Every clause serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (covering return values), a clear input schema (100% coverage), and strong annotations, the description is complete for an agent: it explains what the tool retrieves, how to get the right path, and what failure behavior to expect. A 5 would require mentioning a prerequisite (e.g., 'entity_lookup must be called first to obtain the canonical_url') or potential error cases.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description and regex pattern. The description reinforces the path-segment nature of the parameters ('country, sector, city, slug path segments') but adds no new constraints or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. A 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 uses specific verbs ('Retrieve the Schema.org JSON-LD @graph') and names the exact resource ('Entia Home (machine layer at /v1/identity/{country}/{sector}/{city}/{slug}.jsonld)'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_showcase' and 'entity_lookup' by detailing the path structure and data format.

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 explicitly states that the path must come from 'entity_lookup / showcase (canonical_url)' and clearly excludes using 'cif/q'. It does not, however, explicitly state when NOT to use this tool compared to siblings like 'get_entity_home_projection' or 'get_full_dossier', which would elevate it to a 5.

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