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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds valuable payload context: the response carries person_slug/company_slug when the entity is linked, which is behavior the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is a solid addition.

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?

Purpose and field list are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the disambiguating condition and then downstream wiring. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to prefer it, when to prefer siblings, and where its slug input and output connect. Nothing material is missing.

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%, and both parameters (entity_slug, output_format) are fully documented in the schema, so this is baseline. The description adds provenance for entity_slug (from particle_entity_resolve, episode listings, mention payloads) but no additional format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('One knowledge-graph entity's profile') and enumerates the fields returned (name, kind, description, Wikipedia link). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming particle_person_get/particle_company_get as the preferred tools for linked persons and companies.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('confirm what a slug from particle_entity_resolve actually refers to') and identifies its niche ('the long tail that isn't a person or company'). It names the alternatives and the condition that selects them, plus the downstream tools whose input it feeds.

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