Buscar y ordenar entidades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral constraint (priority sorting only works with a case_id) and the cross-case correlation semantics of an empty case_id, which the agent could not infer from 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?

A single dense sentence with the core search behavior front-loaded and the two constraints appended. No filler, no repetition of schema defaults.

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 7-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key constraint. It does not mention pagination behavior or result shape, but with no output schema and limit/offset documented in the schema, that gap is minor.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by documenting a cross-parameter dependency (sort=priority requires case_id) that the schema does not express. The case_id empty-means-all explanation largely duplicates the schema text.

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 and resource ('Busca entidades') plus the search dimension (texto en valor y/o tipo) and scope (un caso o todos). It is clearly distinguishable from single-entity siblings like osint_get_entity, though it never names an alternative 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?

Gives concrete usage context: empty case_id means cross-case correlation, and sort=priority requires case_id. These are real decision rules, but there is no explicit 'use X instead when...' routing to siblings such as osint_get_entity or osint_list_entity_types.

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