get_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the main output shape, listing supported fields, and clarifies the entity types. However, it does not mention caveats, limits on relation depth, formatting, authentication needs, or what happens if the id does not exist.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and pack is highly relevant. Every phrase adds something meaningful: the action, the input, the output fields, and the id-source relationship.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states input, output fields, entity types, provenance, and how to get the id. It could be improved by briefly mentioning what is not included or why this is distinct from get_dossier/get_company_details, but the essential usage is clear.

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?

The schema only documents 'Entity id' but the description adds useful semantic guidance: the id refers to a specific entity full record, and the id is typically derived from search_entities or lookup_company. This helps agents understand what value to pass and how to obtain it without duplicating 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?

Description explicitly names the tool's action ('Full record for one entity by id') and enumerates the returned fields (type, identifiers, jurisdiction, risk level, summary, direct relationships with provenance). It distinguishes itself from search tools by referring to them as id-sources, establishing a clear get-by-id purpose.

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 provides direct workflow guidance: 'Get the id from search_entities or lookup_company.' This clearly implies the primary use case (fetch a full entity record once id is known), but it does not list explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios relative to other sibling tools like get_dossier or get_company_details.

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