Describe Entity Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Describe' reasonably implies a read-only/introspection operation, and 'discovered fields' hints at metadata inspection. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor clarify what 'discovered' means in practice.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded. It is slightly too terse to fully support tool selection, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

Because the output schema exists, the return shape is covered, but the description still leaves key gaps: what constitutes a valid entity, what 'discovered fields' means, and how this relates to sibling tools like discover_fields_tool and entity_list_tool. With no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is not 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?

The input schema has a bare 'entity: string' with 0% schema description coverage and no enums. The description adds the context that the entity is a 'Grocy entity,' but it does not explain acceptable entity identifiers, naming conventions, or examples. This does not adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it describes a Grocy entity and its discovered fields. It avoids a pure tautology by adding the 'discovered fields' concept. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as discover_fields_tool or entity_list_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention related tools like discover_fields_tool or entity_list_tool, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the verb 'Describe' alone.

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