get_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what the tool returns (attributes, identity keys, relationships, authentication attempts, segments), which is the key output behavior. However, it does not disclose operational traits such as match behavior when multiple entities resolve to a plain name, any auth requirements, or response size/limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences with zero waste. The primary return scope is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys identifier flexibility with concrete examples. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool described as 'everything known about one entity,' the enumerated categories give an agent a solid expectation of return content despite the absence of an output schema. It is reasonably complete for the tool's scope, though it stops short of explaining edge behavior such as resolution when a plain name maps to multiple entities.

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 coverage is 50% — only 'engagement' has a schema description. The 'identifier' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the tool description compensates by specifying it accepts an entity id, an identity key, or a plain name. This adds real meaning beyond the schema for the otherwise-uncovered required parameter, though it could go further (e.g., exact name-matching 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing — 'Everything known about one entity' — and enumerates the full scope (attributes, identity keys, relationships, authentication attempts, segments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_entities (plural, broad listing) and search, making the tool's singular focus 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 description explicitly states the acceptable input formats — 'entity id, an identity key, or a plain name such as FILE01 or an IP address' — which is valuable usage context for an agent deciding what to pass. It gives clear context for use but does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings like search or list_entities, so no exclusions are provided.

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