Get CERIF entity detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output structure (category, primary id, child elements, linking entities) and input flexibility (friendly names or exact element names). It does not mention error behavior (e.g., unknown entity name) or any side effects, but as a read-only lookup tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase contributes meaningful information. No filler or redundancy; it is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, what inputs it accepts, and gives examples. It lacks only edge-case details like not-found errors or case sensitivity, which are minor given the simple scope.

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 schema description already covers the single parameter fully (100%), but the tool description adds extra examples of friendly names (person, project, publication) and exact names (cfPers, cfProj, cfResPubl), reinforcing the accepted formats. This adds value beyond the schema and clarifies naming conventions.

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 the tool 'Returns the full definition of one CERIF 1.6 entity' and enumerates what that definition includes (category, primary id element, child elements, linking entities). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities, which lists entities rather than returning a single entity's detail.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this tool when you need the full detail of a single entity, as opposed to listing all entities or working with schemes. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the 'one CERIF entity' wording strongly implies the scope. No direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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