get_entity_access

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail – that the result includes inheritance sources – but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether it returns inherited vs. direct entries, or any scope limits.

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 no filler; the key scope qualifier ('including inheritance sources') arrives at the end but the sentence is short enough that nothing is buried. No structural issues, though there is no room for expansion given the small size.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it gestures at this ('extended access settings ... inheritance sources') but does not describe the shape of the response or how direct vs. inherited access is represented. For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with annotation support, this is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 only 50%: entityType carries an enum and a description, but entityId is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not mention either parameter or clarify that entityType governs which entityId namespace applies, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('extended access settings of an entity') plus a scope qualifier ('including inheritance sources'). However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_entity_permissions, so an agent cannot tell which of the two access-related reads to pick without opening schemas.

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, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as get_entity_permissions or update_entity_access. The agent must infer the selection context entirely from the tool name.

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