Describe Reliability Entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description ('Get') aligns with read-only behavior. Description adds that it retrieves 'definition and state', providing some context beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate 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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second notes the alias. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and parameter domain. It lacks detail on what 'state' entails, but overall it is complete enough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists the allowed enum values in parentheses (Customer, Revenue, Funnel), providing partial coverage. However, it does not explain the meaning or usage of each type, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'definition and state of a business entity', and lists specific entity types (Customer, Revenue, Funnel). The alias note distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'describe_semantic_entity'.

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 alias to 'describe_semantic_entity' implies equivalency, providing usage guidance by associating the two tools. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are given.

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