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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It specifies what data is returned (attested statements, sources, attestation block) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the entity does not exist, or any authentication requirements. The side effects and failure modes are undocumented.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output components. It is concise and wastes no words, though breaking it into a short list could improve scanability.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It partially covers the output contents but omits error handling, parameter semantics, and any context on how to interpret the 'attestation block' or the significance of trust levels. The tool is not fully specified for an agent to call correctly.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'entity_domain' parameter. It refers to 'an entity' but provides no format, example, or constraint. The agent would have to guess that entity_domain is a domain name or identifier, which is a significant gap.

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 returns a 'full public fact passport of an entity' and enumerates its contents: attested statements with sources and the attestation block. This differentiates it from siblings like ask, list_entities, or search_entities, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used when the full attested fact set is needed, nor does it note any exclusions such as 'for searches use search_entities instead.' The usage context is only implicit.

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