entity_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses operation variants and argument requirements but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, the return format, or any side effects. Since this is a query-style tool, the risk is low, but behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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?

The description is efficiently organized with a bulleted list of info_type options and a compact args section. The only minor redundancy is restating parameters in the args list after already describing them in the options, but overall the structure aids scanning and comprehension.

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's moderate complexity (5 params, multiple endpoint types, no output schema), the description covers all required inputs and use cases. It lacks expected return shapes or examples, but the endpoint enumeration and parameter guidance make the tool usable. A slightly higher score would require additional context on response structures or error behavior.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains each info_type option and which parameters each requires, and it defines the roles of object_id, entity_type, limit, and skip. This exceeds the bare schema by providing meaningful operational semantics.

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 the tool 'Query generic BHE entity endpoints' and explicitly distinguishes it from 'a specific composite tool,' signaling it's for cases not covered elsewhere. It enumerates the exact info_type sub-operations, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'not covered by a specific composite tool' gives clear contextual guidance for when to use this tool versus the many sibling info tools. It does not explicitly list alternative tool names or exclusion conditions, but the sibling set and per-option prerequisites (e.g., 'needs: object_id') provide implied usage direction.

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