exact_get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not the sole carrier of safety information. It adds some useful context with 'allowed' and 'validated', hinting at access restrictions and key requirements, but does not disclose error behavior or what happens when a record is not found.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with the verb and core resource front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant detail; every word contributes to identifying the operation.

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?

With no output schema and no property descriptions in the input schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits how entity values are determined, what select controls, what validation means in practice, and how this tool relates to sibling read tools.

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 compensate, but it only addresses the 'key' parameter ('validated simple or composite key'). The 'entity' and 'select' parameters are not explained at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 states a clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one allowed entity record'), and a distinguishing mechanism ('validated simple or composite key'). It effectively separates this from list/schema siblings by emphasizing a single record, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 'Read one allowed entity record by a validated simple or composite key' implies the tool is for fetching a single record when a valid key is available. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer siblings like exact_list_entity_records or exact_get_entity_schema.

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