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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'knowledge graph' linkage framing and says nothing about pagination behavior, default/maximum limits, ordering, or what a result set looks like — almost no value beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word carries meaning and the resource is stated immediately.

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?

For a 3-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits, however, the pagination/limit semantics of the result and any hint that this is the reverse of get_document_entities, which would help the agent pick 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: entity_id, limit (with default and bounds), and workspace_id (including the token-implied-workspace hint) are all documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing further about parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Obtiene') plus resource ('documentos') and a precise scope qualifier ('vinculados a una entidad del knowledge graph'). The direction (entity -> documents) is clear, which pairs naturally against the sibling get_document_entities, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus find_documents, search_documents, get_documents, or the reverse ge_tr get_document_entities. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the entity-centrism of the query.

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