maltego_score_entity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds that the computation is deterministic and provides the exact output structure. No contradictions; the description adds value beyond 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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds essential information: the scores returned, the derivation, the parameter, and the return format. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior for a single parameter tool. It explains the output structure in detail, compensating for the lack of an explicit output schema in the provided data. It also mentions the derivation source (graph structure and Investigation Memory), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effect.

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 includes a description for entity_id, so the description adds no new semantic value. It only repeats the parameter meaning. With schema description coverage at 0% (possibly misreported), the description does not compensate but also does not harm. 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 it computes intelligence-quality scores for one entity deterministically, specifying the five scores returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like maltego_rank_entities (multiple entities) and maltego_explain_scores (explanation). The title 'Score Entity' reinforces this.

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 explicitly limits scoring to a single entity ('for one entity') and mentions deterministic behavior. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or point to alternatives, but the context of one entity vs. many is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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