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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-style operation and lists record contents, but it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, response shape details, pagination behavior, or any limitations. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then appends a useful list of return contents. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the input requirement and the expected return contents. It does not describe error cases or response format, but the enumerated record components give an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 schema provides only a string type for 'slug' with no description, while schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explicitly stating that the slug identifies the entity being retrieved. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient guidance, though it could have added format details or clarified what constitutes a valid slug.

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 states a specific action ('Get the full record for one entity'), the lookup key ('by slug'), and enumerates the contents of the record (scores, evidence, sources, tags, links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities or search_entities, which involve multiple entities or search behavior.

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 implies the appropriate use case: when the agent has a slug and needs a single entity's full record. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or call out alternatives such as list_entities for browsing or get_entity_relations for relationship data.

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