facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key default: current facts only, with `includeHistory` needed for superseded facts and `asOf` for point-in-time reads. It says nothing about permissions, empty/missing entity behavior, result shape, or volume/pagination for a tool that returns 'All' facts.

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 clauses, front-loaded with purpose before the routing hint and the temporal hints. The final clause is telegraphic ('asOf / includeHistory for temporal reads') and slightly fragments the prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-required-param read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are present: default scope, history toggle, temporal read. It is not complete on what an entity identifier collision or a nonexistent entity yields, which matters given three interchangeable alias fields.

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100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including that asOf is an ISO timestamp and includeHistory means superseded facts. The description's 'asOf / includeHistory for temporal reads' restates the schema rather than adding format, precedence, or interaction rules between the two. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete resource and scope: 'All current lifecycle facts for an entity', and clarifies the entity identifier aliases (name/entityName/subject). It is distinguishable from sibling `search` and, by implication, from `remember_fact` since this reads rather than writes. It stops short of a crisp verb-resource framing (there is no explicit verb).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer search for a natural-language question', which is exactly the sibling disambiguation an agent needs. It gives no guidance against `entity`, `evidence`, or `keyword`, and doesn't state what happens if the entity is unknown, so it falls short of a full when/when-not map.

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