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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds value by stating 'Fail-closed: never returns ENTIA corporate marketing as if it were the entity', which is a critical behavioral promise beyond annotations. It also clarifies the exact URL path structure, aiding the agent in understanding the resource location.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first sentence states the action and resource, second provides parameter usage guidance referencing sibling tools, third gives a behavioral constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the high schema coverage, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), presence of an output schema, and 4 clear path parameters, the description is complete. It explains the resource URL pattern, how to get the required path, and a safety constraint. No obvious gaps for an agent to 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how the four path parameters (country, sector, city, slug) combine into the JSON-LD URL pattern, and contrasts them with 'cif/q' parameters used by other tools. This provides semantic coherence beyond individual field descriptions in the schema.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a Schema.org JSON-LD @graph for a specific entity's Entia Home. It specifies the URL pattern (/v1/identity/{country}/{sector}/{city}/{slug}.jsonld) and distinguishes it from other tools by noting it uses country/sector/city/slug path segments, not cif/q. This differentiates it well from siblings like entity_lookup or get_entity_home_projection.

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 explicitly states how to obtain the required path via entity_lookup/showcase (canonical_url), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives for exclusion, but the context signals and sibling list imply alternatives are available. The fail-closed warning about not returning corporate marketing adds practical behavioral guidance.

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