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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds a useful output size cap ('<=1.6 KB') indicating the card is compact, but it does not disclose lookup failure behavior, permissions, or how the entity is resolved.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's identity and contents. The shorthand phrasing ('hub, tier, venues, next / last call, top words') is terse but not padded with waste.

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 no output schema, the description does list the returned card fields, which helps. But for a tool with three undocumented parameters (including a required id and an enum format) and no usage guidance, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the three parameters. Instead it mentions none of them: not the required `id`, not `fields`, and not the `format` enum of tsv/json/md. The listed card contents do not clarify parameter behavior.

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 identifies this as an entity card and enumerates the returned contents (kind, hub, tier, venues, next/last call, top words), so the resource is somewhat clear. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb and does not define what an 'entity' is or distinguish this card from siblings such as brief or word.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no indication of when not to use it, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the card contents alone.

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