describe_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: returns entity's bound table, identity column, description, and full column list with PII sensitivity. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence adds value, covering when to use, what it returns, and how to compose with other tools. No wasted words.

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 tool has only one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return structure, prerequisites, and integration with sibling tools, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to misinterpret.

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% and the input schema already provides a thorough parameter description including format constraints (no dots, no schema qualifier) and a prerequisite (call list_entities first). The tool description repeats these points without adding new parameter-specific semantics beyond 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 the tool's purpose: to describe a specific entity when the user names it. It specifies what the tool returns (bound table, identity column, description, full column list with PII sensitivity) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool (user names a specific entity) versus alternatives (list_entities when entities are unknown). Also provides common compositions with describe_table and describe_column, showing how to chain tools effectively.

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