describe_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that blocked PII fields are marked as 'blocked: true' and that get_records refuses queries for those fields. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the raw schema, though it does not cover all potential traits like authentication 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?

The description is two sentences with clear front-loading of the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary fluff. It is highly efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the primary purpose and a notable behavioral nuance. It does not mention potential input constraints (e.g., case sensitivity) but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'entity' parameter. The description implies that 'entity' is the name of the entity to describe but does not specify format (e.g., ID or exact name) or provide examples. This offers some meaning but lacks detail, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool shows one entity's fields, types, and PII tags. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('entity's fields, types, PII tags'), which differentiates it from siblings like list_entities (list all entities) and get_records (retrieve records).

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 some context about blocked PII fields and how get_records behaves, but it does not explicitly state when to use describe_entity over siblings. There is no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_entities or semantic_search.

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