Get an entity

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds useful content-level context (facts, corrections, retractions, who and when), but says nothing about pagination, volume limits, auth requirements, or behavior when the entity_id is unknown.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the use case and ending in a colon-delimited enumeration of what is returned. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing enumeration is doing descriptive work the schema partly duplicates.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys purpose and the shape of the returned data. Minor gaps remain around unknown-ID behavior and result size/pagination, but nothing critical 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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase "every fact, correction and retraction" loosely signals the include_history dimension, but the description adds no format or default detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (read) and resource (one entity) plus the scope of what is read: current facts, corrections, retractions and provenance. This implicitly contrasts with the mutation siblings (record_fact, correct_fact, retract_fact) and with list_changes, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Use to read what is currently true about one entity" gives an implied trigger, and "and how it got that way" hints at the history variant. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no routing to sibling tools such as list_changes for multi-entity queries.

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