describe_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that results are ACL-filtered and include incoming links, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about required permissions, failure modes, or whether lookups are exact-match or fuzzy.

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 returned content (entity page plus linking pages) is stated immediately. Nothing is redundant or restated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are appropriately omitted. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer about input format and access requirements.

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?

There is one parameter ('entity') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies whether 'entity' expects an ID, slug, name, or URL, leaving the single required argument underspecified.

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 ('Describe') and resource ('one entity page') and adds scope detail about returning ACL-visible linking pages. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like read_page or search_brain, so an agent must guess which is appropriate for entity lookup.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. Nothing tells the agent whether this is a replacement for read_page, a companion to search_brain, or how it relates to list_pages.

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