sourcesage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'Get detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, depth). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, though it risks under-specification. It's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. For adequate context, it should provide more details on what 'detailed information' includes and usage constraints.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics: it states 'entity_name: Name of the entity', which matches the schema's title 'Entity Name'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this provides basic clarification but doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details (e.g., format constraints, examples, or what entities are valid). It falls short of the needed compensation.

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 states the tool 'Get detailed information about an entity', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('entity'), but it's vague about what constitutes 'detailed information' and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'query_entities' or 'register_entity'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'query_entities' (which might list entities) and 'register_entity' (which creates entities), the description offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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