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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior burden. It discloses the 500-entity cap, the registry total, the trust-level inclusion, and the large-registry caveat. It does not mention potential side effects, but 'list' strongly implies a read-only operation and the disclosed limits are directly relevant to invocation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, then a targeted alternative. Every sentence adds useful operational information with no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively conveys the return scope (entities, trust level, cap, total) and how to handle large registries. It could go slightly deeper into entity shape or pagination mechanics, but for a zero-parameter list tool it is largely complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not introduce param-related confusion.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('published entities in the Intesta registry') and adds the key output feature (trust level A0-A4). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_passport for proof and search_entities for large registries.

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 states when to prefer search_entities, and directs users to get_passport for trust-level meaning and proof. This provides clear context for selecting this tool over its siblings, with no ambiguity.

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