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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('entity'), the 50-edge cap per reference list, that referenceCounts gives totals, and that list_references holds the rest. It also mentions refusal behavior for ambiguous names. This is comprehensive for a read operation.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavioral details. No redundant phrasing; every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present, the return format is covered. The description addresses input selection, ambiguity handling, and pagination limits, leaving no critical gaps for a tool of this complexity (3 optional params, no nested objects).

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 covers id and name descriptions but not type (67% coverage). The description adds the relationship: 'Input: id, or type and name', clarifying that id alone or type+name together are valid. This compensates for the missing type description and adds meaning beyond 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?

Description states the tool returns one entity as structured data (fields, sections, tables, references both ways), a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from fetch (page as written) and list_references (for more edges), making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to reason over an entity; for its page as written use fetch', naming the alternative and when to prefer it. Also notes that an ambiguous name is refused with candidate ids, guiding the agent on valid input patterns.

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