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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what each returned section contains (write_contract feeds preview_write_entity, live lists filter/sort fields) and how the detail/query modes change the response. This cross-tool relational detail is real added value.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry real information, but the prose is dense and the trailing 'Args: route: one key of payload_guide routes.' line is fragmentary and awkwardly placed. It reads as terse internal documentation rather than a clean, well-structured summary.

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 no prose explanation. The description supplies mode selection, section meanings, and the query fallback for unknown entities. Only correlation_id and any deeper payload structure are left uncovered, a minor gap for a read-only schema-inspection tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 6 parameters, the description must carry the load, and it does for most: entity ('exact API entity'), detail (payload_guide/import_guide), query+limit (candidate listing when name unknown), and route ('one key of payload_guide routes'). Only correlation_id is left unexplained, so it nearly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the writable allowlist and queryable schema for one entity.' This distinguishes it functionally from siblings like get_entity and get_reference_data. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 clearly explains which mode applies to which situation: default for openapi/live/write_contract/entity_actions, detail='payload_guide' for the workflow cheat sheet, detail='import_guide' for CSV specs, and query= without entity for unknown names. It gives strong operational context but does not state when to reach for this tool versus a sibling like get_entity.

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