rx_describe_entity

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 still adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: it returns field/reference metadata with types and explicitly does not read records, which prevents an agent from expecting data rows. No rate-limit or output-format detail, but that gap is minor given annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, when to call it, where the input comes from, and what it does not do. Front-loaded with the purpose and zero 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed: the return content is field/reference definitions with types, the input source is rx_find_entity, and the correct call ordering relative to rx_query.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that 'entity' is a set name like IContracts. The description only reinforces the provenance of that name ('берётся из rx_find_entity') without adding syntax beyond the schema. 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+resource ('Поля и ссылки набора сущностей Directum RX с типами') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming rx_query and rx_find_entity. An agent can tell this is a schema/metadata lookup distinct from record-reading tools without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Вызывайте перед rx_query, чтобы правильно написать filter, select и expand'), the prerequisite for the input ('Имя набора берётся из rx_find_entity'), and an explicit exclusion ('Сами записи не читает'). All three routing questions an agent has are answered.

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