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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the operation is safe, and the description adds useful behavioral context: what fields the response contains, the conditional presence of person_slug/company_slug, and that linked entities should be handled through other tools. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and well-structured: first the core function, then the primary use case, then explicit routing to siblings and downstream consumers. Every sentence adds information without redundancy or 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 simple read-only entity lookup with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content, the intended use case, the alternatives, and downstream integration. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though the entity_slug schema description supplies examples and sources, and the output_format schema description explains the markdown/json tradeoff.

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 and resource: retrieving a single knowledge-graph entity's profile with name, kind, description, and Wikipedia link. It also distinguishes itself from the person/company getter siblings by explicitly noting those return fuller profiles for linked entities.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: confirm what a slug from particle_entity_resolve refers to, especially for non-person/non-company entities. It also names the preferred alternatives for person and company entities, and even lists downstream tools that consume entity slugs.

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