find_entities

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

Adds a side-effect disclosure not visible in the schema: the call may create the project database despite being a read operation. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and the non-destructive, idempotent annotations, so there is no contradiction, though no further behavioral detail (auth, rate limits) is given.

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 tightly packed sentences; the search scope is front-loaded and the side-effect caveat is appended without extra prose. Nothing is wasted.

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 a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description carries only the scope plus the database-creation caveat, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing match ranking or pagination behavior, but that is minor here.

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 every parameter (query, project, entity_type, limit) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of name/alias/acronym/spelling variants only restates the query parameter's schema text, adding no new semantic value.

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 (search) and resource (a project's wiki entities) plus the matching modes (name, alias, acronym, spelling variant). The stated goal of reusing an entity id while extracting distinguishes it from mutation siblings like merge_entities.

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 a clear usage context (reusing an entity's id during extraction) but names no alternative tool and no explicit when-not conditions, so an agent must infer routing against merge_entities or list_articles on its own.

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