maltego_expand_entity

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutating) and openWorldHint=true (potentially broad scope). The description adds that it 'Records Investigation Memory and links results back to the entity,' which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured: front-loaded purpose, usage guidance, and behavior. The Args block is redundant with the schema but not excessive. Two sentences plus a parameter list is concise enough.

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 tool that runs all transforms on one entity, the description covers purpose, use case, parameters, and return type (summary string). It lacks details on potential performance impact or result volume, but with openWorldHint and output schema present, it's reasonably complete.

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 descriptions for all parameters (entity_id, max_rounds, allow_network) with high coverage. The description's 'Args' block merely repeats these descriptions verbatim, adding no extra meaning. Baseline 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 'Run ALL applicable, available transforms on ONE entity to pivot from it.' This specifies the action (run) and resource (entity transforms), and the scope (ALL transforms) differentiates it from sibling like 'maltego_run_transform' which runs a single transform.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when: you want to dig into a specific node (e.g. a pivot from maltego_identify_pivots) rather than re-running a whole investigation.' It contrasts with broader investigations and mentions recording memory, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use.

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