Entities: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'details and fields', which hints at the payload but discloses nothing about lookup failure behavior, name matching semantics, or permissions beyond what the annotations already imply.

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?

Six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than optimal information density.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate; there is no output schema, so the description could reasonably note whether the returned fields include related field definitions, but the omission is not fatal.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Entity name'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no extra meaning such as accepted name formats or case sensitivity, so the 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (entity) plus what is returned (details and fields), which is enough to know it is a single-record read. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as entities_list, entities_update, or fields_get, so an agent must inspect the schemas to route correctly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The description never says to prefer this over entities_list when fetching one known entity, nor what happens when the name does not resolve.

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