get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say what 'details' are returned, whether a not-found case is possible, or whether additional fields are populated for different entity types.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the thinness reflects under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description barely suffices. Because no output schema exists, the description should ideally indicate what details are returned, which is a real gap given the many lookup-style siblings.

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% and there is a single documented parameter (entity_id), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no meaning such as ID format, source of the ID, or accepted identifier types.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific legal entity'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_entities. However, it offers no differentiation from the other get_* siblings (get_organization, get_contract, get_worker) that likely share the same retrieval pattern, so an agent must infer which resource applies.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_entities for enumeration vs this tool for a single lookup. Usage is only implied by the word 'specific'.

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