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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether results are capped or paginated, whether the criteria are ANDed or ORed, whether 'find' with zero arguments returns the entire entity set, or whether matching is exact or fuzzy. Only the mild implication of 'Find' suggests a read-only operation.

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; each of the three clauses maps to a real search mode. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

Four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description should explain both the zero-argument default and roughly what a result looks like, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell whether omitting `q` and `capability` yields all entities or an error.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning by glossing capability as 'what they can do' and tying alias_type to bound aliases, but it omits the `level` filter entirely and describes `q` only as 'by name' when the schema says it also accepts an exact EID.

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 (find) and resource (entities) and enumerates three search axes: capability, name, and alias type. It is clearly a discovery/query tool, distinguishable in spirit from siblings like openentity_read or openentity_resolve, but it never names those siblings or states the boundary 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?

The three lookup modes imply when to reach for this tool (you have a capability slug, a name, or an alias type), but there is no stated when-not, no mention of openentity_resolve or openentity_read as alternatives, and no guidance on what happens when no criteria are supplied even though every parameter is optional.

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