find_entities_with_io

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context that subclasses inherit the input/output and that candidates should be checked with get_entity, which is behavior beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are less critical here.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a crucial inheritance note and follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description gives the essential behavior and a follow-up step, but the lack of any mention of 'side' or 'limit' leaves a minor gap for optional parameters.

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 coverage is 50%: 'game' and 'name' are described in the schema, while 'side' and 'limit' have no description anywhere. The description only references 'name' indirectly ('input or output with this name') and gives no meaning for 'side' or 'limit', failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('entity classes') with scope ('including base classes') and the search target ('input or output with this name'). It distinguishes itself from get_entity by directing follow-up checks, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_schema_classes or get_schema_class.

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?

Implies a workflow by saying 'check candidates with get_entity', giving some context on how to use results. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_schema_classes) or any exclusions, leaving usage largely inferred.

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