ofp_entity

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: specifically, that ambiguous entity names cause the call to fail rather than the tool guessing a domain. This is useful failure-mode information that helps the agent avoid errors.

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 carry exactly the necessary information: the first defines the tool's function and output, the second highlights a critical usage caveat. It is tightly written with no filler, and the most actionable instruction is placed prominently.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly: what it returns, the domain ambiguity issue, and the required name parameter. The failure-mode warning closes the main gap. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 already describes both parameters with examples, so baseline coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful guidance above the schema: the importance of `domain`, the existence of 48 ambiguous entity names, and the specific consequence of omitting it. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter usage beyond the raw field descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get one canonical entity in full', and enumerates the returned content (fields, primary key, relationships, physical table). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ofp_search_entities beyond the word 'canonical' and 'one entity in full'.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: pass `domain` whenever you know it, and warns that ambiguous names fail rather than being guessed. This provides clear context for selecting parameters and helps the agent decide how to call the tool. It does not explicitly describe when to use this tool over siblings, but the purpose is narrow enough that the guidance is adequate.

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