get_grc_entity

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds 'full details,' which suggests a complete record rather than a summary, but it says nothing about field coverage, missing-record behavior, or permissions — modest added value on top of annotations.

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 zero filler, scoping the operation and naming the key input immediately. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness leaves no room for routing or return-value context.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover safety, this is close to adequate, but there is no output schema and 'full details' does not say what the record contains or how errors on an invalid sys_id surface.

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?

Only one parameter exists, and the schema documents it fully as a '32-char sys_id of the Entity' at 100% coverage. The description repeats the identifier but adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 (GRC Entity) with explicit singular scope ('a single'), which implicitly separates it from list_grc_entities. It does not name sibling tools directly, so a reader must infer the boundaries from the singular/plural contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch one entity when you already have its sys_id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_grc_entities or query_records, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are mentioned.

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