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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that Wikidata resolution is not yet available and includes pricing/paument context, but it does not describe the output format, language support, side effects, or the exact nature of extracted entities.

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 three short sentences, each contributing useful information: the core functionality, the current limitation/roadmap, and the cost. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is largely sufficient and includes relevant context such as entity categories, no Wikidata resolution, and price. However, since there is no output schema, the main omission is an explicit statement of the return shape (e.g., a list of entity strings versus typed spans), which would make invocation expectations clearer.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'from text' adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Input text'; it names the input but provides no additional constraints, format, or length guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Extracts'), a direct object ('named entities'), enumerates the categories (people, companies, places), and the source ('from text'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from text siblings like sentiment, summarize, or pii_guard. The Wikidata roadmap also clarifies what the tool does not currently do.

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?

The description implies the use case—named-entity extraction from text—but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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