data_dubai_entities

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two traits not in the annotations: '(no credentials)' discloses that no auth is required, and 'Filtering is client-side' warns that the search is applied locally rather than server-side, which affects expectations about result sets.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the definition of issuing entities and the client-side filtering note each carry distinct information. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers what the tool returns (entity list), the optional filter behavior, and the auth posture - everything an agent needs before calling a zero-required-parameter read tool.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by noting the filter is optional and executed client-side - the schema only describes substring matching semantics, not where the filter runs.

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 and resource ('List data.dubai issuing entities') and then defines the resource concretely: publishers behind the catalog, with named examples (RTA, DEWA, Dubai Police, 70+ more). This is distinguishable from siblings like data_dubai_search and data_dubai_themes, which operate on the catalog contents rather than the publishers.

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?

Usage is implied - an agent can infer this is the discovery call for publishers - and the parenthetical '(no credentials)' hints at when it is safe/appropriate to use. However, it never names the adjacent tools (data_dubai_search, data_dubai_themes) or states an exclusion, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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