rx_find_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description confirms 'metadata read only' and adds genuinely new context: what is returned (set names with field and reference counts) and the recommended continuation path. It does not contradict idempotentHint=false, though it also does not explain that nested trait.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then the usage condition, then return shape and next steps. Dense and purposeful, with only mild overlap between the description's language note and the schema's query examples.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape (set names plus field/link counts) and the downstream tools to call. For a two-parameter read-only lookup, nothing needed for correct invocation is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description merely echoes the search semantics (Russian/English names) without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (find Directum RX entity sets by name) and explicitly broadens scope to any type including customer customizations. It also differentiates itself from sibling finders (rx_find_documents, rx_find_employees) by declaring itself the fallback when no ready-made rx_* tool exists.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use when there is no ready-made rx_* tool for the data') and then an explicit two-step follow-up workflow: rx_describe_entity to see fields, rx_query to read records. Both when-to-use and the alternative route are named.

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