Get entity registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output includes disabled/hidden flags, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how the multi-home instance_id refusal behaves (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the use-case sentence. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 read-only inspection tool with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned well enough to call it correctly. It could state the response shape (a list of registry entries) or filtering interactions, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the instance_id refusal semantics and the include_disabled default. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('entity registry') and enumerates the metadata returned (platform, area, device, unique-id, disabled/hidden). It is clearly distinct from ha_get_state (state vs. registry metadata), though it never names a sibling tool to route against.

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?

'Useful for finding disabled entities or the area/device an entity belongs to' gives a concrete use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like ha_list_entities or ha_get_state, which an agent selecting between registry and state lookups would need.

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