describe_entity

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the output is bounded, ACL-visible, and includes cited relationship evidence. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, error semantics, or any permission requirements beyond the ACL mention.

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 a single, focused sentence of about 10 words. It front-loads the most distinctive attributes and avoids filler, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return shape may be covered elsewhere, but the description does not explain the required input parameter at all. With no usage guidance and zero schema description coverage, an agent lacks enough information to construct a correct call confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required 'entity' parameter. It does not explain what form the entity value should take (ID, name, slug), any validation rules, or examples. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 names a specific action ('Return') and resource ('entity dossier') with distinctive attributes ('bounded, ACL-visible, cited relationship evidence'). It is clear enough to separate from siblings like list_entities or read_page, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as search_brain, read_page, or list_entities. The description implies it is for a single entity dossier, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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