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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the page is a listing, not a ranking, and describes the return fields. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or authentication requirements, which are important for an agent.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then efficiently covering match modes, optional parameters, and return fields. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

The description covers match semantics, return structure, and the listing-not-ranking behavior. However, it omits an explanation for the 'type' parameter and does not provide usage guidance versus siblings. Given the output schema exists, the return is covered, but the missing type semantics and lack of when-to-use context make it incomplete.

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 50%. The description adds significant value for the 'match' parameter by detailing the three modes and their semantics, and it explains the return structure. However, it does not elaborate on the 'type' parameter, which lacks a schema description, leaving a gap that the description should fill.

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 states the tool finds entities by words, substring, or exact name, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_entities and get_entity by focusing on search semantics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains the three match modes and optional parameters, giving clear context on how to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_entities or find_evidence, nor does it state exclusions.

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