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 useful behavioral context: results are ordered by occurrence_count DESC, and it lists the returned fields since no output schema exists. It does not discuss auth needs or pagination limits, keeping it at a 4.

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 front-loaded with the main action and uses a bulleted entity-type list that is easy to scan. It is somewhat long, especially the label/board-conditions note, but that detail is relevant and not wasted.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete: it explains scope, entity types, ordering, alternatives, and returned fields. It says 'todas las entidades' while limit defaults to 200, so the agent is not told what happens when there are more than 200 entities or how to paginate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the type enum by defining each value (person, project, organization, category, entity) and explaining that labels are also entities distinguished by type. It adds less for limit and workspace_id, which the schema already documents well.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista todas las entidades del knowledge graph del workspace', and immediately explains what the knowledge graph contains. It distinguishes this from search_entities by naming that alternative, so an agent can tell the tool apart from sibling lookup tools.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: use this to list all entities, but use search_entities(query) for a specific entity instead of loading everything. The ordering rule (occurrence_count DESC) also helps the agent understand what it will get back.

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