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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads from a materializer snapshot, is served from R2, and has no enrichment. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second states equivalence, third states sourcing and limitation. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned (claims+projection+policy), data source (materializer snapshot), equivalence to public ficha, and the render_context option. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only projection 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information; all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 the tool reads a materializer snapshot for an Entia Home containing claims, projection, and policy. It specifies it is the same truth as the public ficha HTML/JSON-LD twin and served from a specific R2 file. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_entia_home and get_full_dossier.

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 implies usage by noting equivalence to the public ficha and that it lacks ad-hoc enrichment, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entia_home or get_full_dossier. The context is provided but no direct when-not or exclusions are given.

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