QueryEntityFull

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Retrieve' does convey a read-only intent and separates it from the many update/create/delete siblings. However, it does not disclose anything about authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, what 'Full' adds over a normal query, or whether document scan data is returned inline or as a reference, so transparency is only partially satisfied.

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 one short, front-loaded phrase with no filler—every word contributes to scope. It is easy to parse, but it is also terse to the point of being a fragment rather than a structured explanation; a sentence clarifying output or usage would make it more valuable without ruining conciseness.

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 zero-parameter tool the complexity is low, but the description still leaves important context out: it does not mention that the tool returns combined entity and document-scan information, whether the operation depends on an already-selected entity, or how this differs from QueryDocumentFull/QueryEntity. With no output schema and no annotations, the bare phrase is too thin for an agent to reliably decide when to call it.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap to fill. Under the zero-parameter policy, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter semantics, giving it a baseline of 4. It would only need a 5 if it added extra context about implicit inputs or state dependencies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with a compound resource: 'Entity Details' and 'Document Scan Data.' This makes the core action clear and distinguishes it from siblings like QueryEntity (entity only) and QueryDocumentFull (document-focused) by combining entity data with scan data. It loses the fifth point because it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, and 'Document Scan Data' remains somewhat ambiguous without context.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as QueryEntity, QueryDocumentFull, or QueryEntityChecks. The only implied guidance is from the tool name and the phrase itself—agents might infer it is for a full entity+scan lookup—but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is effectively no usable guidance.

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