Detalle y explicación de una entidad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive content-level behavior: what the payload contains, that scores come with an explanation, and that provenance plus executed/pending transforms are included. Missing only edge behavior (entity not found, size limits).

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 front-loaded sentence whose enumerated return fields each carry information. Slightly run-on as an appended list, but no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return content, and it does so concretely. For an idempotent read with 3 fully documented params and annotation coverage, only error/empty-result behavior is absent.

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%, so case_id, entity_id and response_format are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum and default. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("Devuelve") and resource ("una entidad") and enumerates the returned facets: propiedades, notas, fuentes, puntuación explicada, procedencia, transforms ejecutados y pendientes. That detail distinguishes it from osint_search_entities and osint_get_neighbors, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this after obtaining an entity_id to inspect full detail, including pending transforms. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as osint_search_entities or osint_expand_entity.

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