Retrieve a concise, factual entity profile backed by verified sources and structured relationships, enabling quick validation of claims and exploration of connections while minimizing context usage.
Return a concise, factual entity profile backed by verified sources and structured relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | Canonical entity ID or recognized name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the output will be concise, factual, sourced from verified sources, and include structured relationships, which gives some sense of behavior. However, it does not mention what happens for unknown entity IDs, whether sources are returned inline, or any limitations of the explanation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every qualifier—concise, factual, verified sources, structured relationships—adds meaningful information about the return 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level summary. However, it lacks return-field detail and does not clarify how it differs from get_entity, which is a notable gap given the large sibling set.
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 input schema already documents entity_id as 'Canonical entity ID or recognized name' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: a concise, factual entity profile backed by verified sources and structured relationships. It differentiates the output from a raw entity lookup, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_entity, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 gives no guidance on when to use explain_entity instead of get_entity, find_relationships, or verify_claim. It also provides no exclusions or context that would help an agent select this tool over the many closely related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.