get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that relationships (calls, runsOn) are part of the payload, but it does not disclose that relationships are time-windowed by from_time/to_time (default now-72h), nor what happens when the entity is unknown.

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 no filler, and the key payload elements are front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing is redundant.

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 does carry the return-value burden and lists the main payload sections. However, it omits the meaningful time-window semantics that shape results and gives no guidance for the unknown-entity case, leaving real gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 50%: entity_id and include_relationships have no schema descriptions, and the description only hints at relationships without explaining include_relationships. The from_time/to_time parameters go unmentioned in the description, so the reader must infer from defaults that the relationship graph is bounded by a time range.

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?

Names the resource and enumerates what is returned (properties, tags, management zones, relationships), but the sentence has no verb and no explicit statement that it fetches a single entity by ID. It is distinguishable from search_entities/find_entity_by_name only by inference from the required entity_id parameter.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_entities or find_entity_by_name, and no prerequisites. Nothing tells an agent that this is the follow-up call after resolving an entity name to an ID.

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