get_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose case-insensitive matching and the optional entity_type filter, and states the return type, but it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, rate limits, or side effects.

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 compact and well-structured with Args/Returns sections, front-loading the core action. No redundant or filler wording.

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 simple two-parameter lookup, the description provides the essential information needed to call the tool: what it retrieves and what it returns. The return format is only vaguely described as 'Dict with entity info', but it is adequately complete for the tool's simple purpose.

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 schema provides only titles, so the description compensates by explaining that 'name' is case-insensitive and 'entity_type' is an optional filter. It doesn't enumerate valid entity type values, but the meanings are clear.

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: retrieving all facts involving an entity as subject or object. The entity-centric scope clearly distinguishes it from fact-search and neighbor-tool siblings.

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 implies the use case (entity-centric fact retrieval) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling alternatives like search_facts or get_neighbors are not referenced, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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