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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only published entities are returned and lists the returned components, which implies a read-only lookup. It does not mention not-found behavior, authorization requirements, or any side effects, but 'Return' conveys a non-destructive operation.

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 a single focused sentence with no unnecessary words. The action and result are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter lookup, the description is mostly sufficient and says what the response contains. However, it does not define what `ref` represents and omits edge-case behavior or response shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

The single parameter `ref` has no schema description, and the description never mentions it. There is 0% schema description coverage and no compensation in prose; the parameter's role must be inferred entirely from its name.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('one published ACEL entity'), and specifies the included data: current facts, provenance, and trust state. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_entities, but the wording does convey a single-entity lookup rather than discovery or comparison.

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 when you have a specific entity reference and need one entity's details, especially given the singular 'one' and 'published' wording. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_evidence, search_entities, compare_entities, or search_offerings.

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