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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing search semantics: it searches canonical names and aliases, ignores accents and case, and orders results by exact match, prefix match, then occurrence count. It also lists returned fields and explains that has_wiki should be followed up with get_entity_wiki, which is especially valuable because no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the primary purpose, then uses short bullets and compact follow-up paragraphs for usage, matching behavior, ordering, and return fields. It is appropriately sized for a search tool with no output schema, and every section contributes actionable information.

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 annotations covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description completes the picture by explaining search scope, matching rules, ordering, and returned fields. Because no output schema is provided, its explicit return-value summary is necessary and sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds useful meaning for the query parameter by clarifying alias matching, accent-insensitive matching, and result ordering, though it does not add further semantics for type, limit, or workspace_id beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: search entities in the knowledge graph by name, with partial case-insensitive matching over canonical_name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling document/workspace search tools and from entity detail or suggestion 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?

Includes an explicit 'Usar cuando' section covering three concrete scenarios: needing an entity ID, checking existence before creation, and finding an entity without its ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative entity-search approaches, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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