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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the returned fields (nombre, tipo, and which/how-many recaps) and the cross-workspace default scope, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ended with the key routing hint to resolve_entity_suggestion. Every sentence carries information; no padding.

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 compensates by enumerating the shape of the returned items (nombre, tipo, recaps count and identity) and the scope default, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps around pagination or ordering, but nothing blocking.

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% and the single parameter is already fully documented, including the 'Omitir = TODOS los workspaces' semantics. The description's 'Sin workspace_id mira todos' merely restates the schema, adding no format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource (entities the AI detected in recaps that are not yet in the Atlas) with concrete examples (personas, proyectos, organizaciones) and even the fields returned. It implicitly contrasts with confirmed entities in the Atlas, but never names a sibling such as search_entities or get_entity_details, so a 5 is not reached.

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?

Clearly frames this as the review queue for unconfirmed suggestions and points to resolve_entity_suggestion as the action to accept or discard them. Scope behavior (no workspace_id = all workspaces) is stated. No explicit when-not or alternative-listing guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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