Get entity description from Creatio

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

Despite no annotations, the description openly discloses the tool's conditional behavior: it returns DataForge details when enabled, otherwise falls back to OData metadata. It states behaviour and inputs are identical either way, which adds transparency. It does not cover error scenarios or response format details, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and output, the second covers behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (entity type, keys, properties with types/nullable) and the two source scenarios. It could mention the response format (e.g., JSON object) but the current detail is adequate for agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds usage context ('Use this before CRUD') but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states about the entitySet parameter. It's adequate but not outstanding.

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 inspects schema for an entity set, listing what it returns (entity type, primary keys, properties with types/nullable). It explicitly positions the tool as a pre-CRUD step, distinguishing it from the CRUD and admin sibling tools.

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 advises using the tool before CRUD operations to avoid invalid fields. It explains the two operational modes (DataForge vs OData fallback). While it doesn't list when not to use or name specific alternatives, the context is clear and helpful.

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