search_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and criteria, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a search tool this is a notable omission, though 'search' implies a low-risk operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the verb, resource, and key criteria. Every word contributes value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or padding.

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 existence of an output schema, return values are covered, and the description states the core purpose and main parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, and does not mention any limitations on search scope or result handling, making it only minimally complete for a tool with no annotations and multiple siblings.

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 description coverage is 75%, and the tool description adds a small amount of meaning by introducing 'alias key' as a searchable variant of name and confirming entity_type is optional. However, the 'limit' parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not compensate for that gap, leaving its semantics to be inferred from the title.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with a specific resource ('canonical SAG entities') and search criteria ('by name, alias key and optional entity type'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_evidence, which search evidence, and expand_entity, which expands related entities.

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 implies usage: use when looking up entities by name or alias. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of search_evidence or other sibling tools, so guidance on alternatives is absent.

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