get_entity

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that - nothing about lookup failures, whether the fields parameter degrades the default payload, or response shape. It is the minimum viable amount of behavioral information for a read tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the lookup contract first and the id-discovery hint parenthetically attached. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description says what it fetches and how to obtain the required id. Remaining gaps (not-found behavior, default returned fields) are minor, though the unaddressed overlap with get_project leaves some ambiguity.

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 100%, with entityType enum values and both required ids documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the three entity types but adds no semantics for the optional 'fields' parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a project, portfolio or goal by id'), and it usefully expands the vague term 'entity' into the three concrete types it covers. It does not, however, clarify how it relates to the sibling get_project, which retrieves one of those same types, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to search_entities for obtaining the id it requires, which is a concrete alternative-use pointer. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_project or what happens if the id is unknown, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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