Entities: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description goes beyond them by enumerating the returned flags (public, RLS, lock-new-records) and field properties, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It omits any mention of error/not-found behavior for an unknown entity name.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the parameter, then the return shape, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned entity and field attributes, and it points to the sibling for deeper field detail. It is broadly complete, though it does not cover failure modes or whether the response is paginated/nested.

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% and the single parameter `name` is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'Takes the entity name' adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Get entity details and fields') and distinguishes itself from the sibling `fields_get` by scoping itself to the entity level. An agent can tell it apart from `entities_list` and `fields_get` without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to `fields_get` when a single field's full definition (relationships, select options) is needed, which is the key ambiguity for this tool family. It does not, however, state an explicit when-not rule or contrast against `entities_list`.

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