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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the untrusted-content warning, the payload-size tradeoff of properties, the note that open-item existence stays unverified, and the rule that view='completion' owns its projection with no property/include overrides. That last point is a genuinely useful behavioral constraint. It stops short of 5 only because the untrusted-content warning is asserted without saying how the caller should treat 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and usage trigger, then progressively discloses optional features. It is long, but nearly every sentence carries operative information; the density is justified by nine parameters and three view modes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description nonetheless covers the non-obvious return shapes (quality report contents, contact_persons, referenced_entities, translations completeness). For a complex multi-parameter read tool this is complete enough to invoke 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does most of it: properties, view (three named modes with their accepted entities), view_options (locale, property_names, check_completeness, target_locales), include_quality, include_referenced_entities, additional_properties, and the document-number alias for entity_id. correlation_id and the entity selector are left unexplained, which keeps this below 5.

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 ('Get one weclapp entity by id') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_entities, both as a downstream consumer of its results and as the fallback for document-number lookups. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 trigger conditions ('after search_entities identifies an id or when the user supplies the id') and names an alternative path ('use search_entities(query=<number>)') for the invoice open-item case. When-to-use and the exception are both spelled out.

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