Find entities

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, so the extra burden is low. The description still adds a real behavioral trait beyond annotations: the tool cannot be called without a filter, preventing a wasted call that would otherwise look legal from the schema. It does not describe result ordering or what happens when filters are combined, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the mandatory-filter constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement so the agent cannot miss it. The downstream-usage note is a single tight clause that earns its place by enabling a follow-up call.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the decisive facts an agent needs: what it returns, the filter requirement, and how to reuse IDs. It omits any hint about result shape (entity list plus nextCursor) or paging behavior, though the cursor parameter's own schema description carries that.

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 the baseline is 3. The description beats that by stating a cross-parameter constraint (the anyOf requirement) that the JSON schema does not encode at all, which is genuine meaning beyond the individual field descriptions. It does not clarify how search, category, and savedSearchId interact when combined.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (tracked entities), and enumerates concrete entity types (brand accounts, executives, campaigns) so the agent knows what domain object comes back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_entity sibling by describing a filtered collection search rather than an ID lookup.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition 'at least one of search, organizationId, or savedSearchId is required — there is no unfiltered listing', which is critical given the schema declares zero required parameters. It also tells the agent what to do with the results, feeding entity IDs into get_analytics and search_mentions, giving concrete downstream routing.

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