Get Entity ID

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Look up" implies a read, but nothing states whether it returns one match or many, what happens on a substring that matches several entities, any rate limits, or the auth/connection requirements. For a lookup with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with the verb and both search axes front-loaded. No filler, nothing that could be cut.

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?

Adequate but incomplete for a lookup tool: it conveys the input contract well, but with no output schema and no annotations it does not say whether the result is a single ID or a list of matches, nor the ID format, leaving the return behavior to inference.

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 only 33% (connection alone), so the description must compensate for entityType and entityNameFilter. It does: it gives concrete entity-type values (dt.entity.host, dt.entity.service) and clarifies that the name filter is a substring match, which is real added meaning beyond the bare minLength 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?

States a specific verb ("Look up") and resource ("Dynatrace entity IDs") plus the two axes it searches on (type and name substring). It is clear what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling dynatrace_get_entity_name, which is the reverse lookup and the obvious source of confusion.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The most important routing decision here -- get_entity_id vs get_entity_name -- is left entirely to the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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