search_entities

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

The readOnlyHint is provided, so the safe-read behavior is already known. The description adds that synonyms will be resolved to canonical IDs, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, or other potential quirks. Given the annotation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a differentiating behavior. Every word is useful, and there is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage. It fails to explain how to use the parameters, what pagination does, or how entity filtering works. The tool is more complex than the one-sentence description suggests.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The description gives no details about query_string, page_size, page_index, or entity_names. The only hint is that 'search' implies a query string, but it adds no meaningful parameter-level 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 uses a specific verb 'search' and names the resource 'Open Targets entities', and further clarifies a key behavior: 'resolve synonyms to canonical IDs'. This distinguishes it from the many get_* sibling tools and search_suggestions.

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 tool is used for searching entities and resolving synonyms, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_suggestions or map_ids, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for a generic search, but no alternatives are referenced.

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