Analyze entity prominence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description usefully adds that the output is a transparent 0-100 prominence score combining Google result score, knowledge panel completeness, Wikipedia coverage, Wikidata depth, and linked official profiles, plus a plain-English reason for each. It also discloses the API-key dependency and Wikidata-only fallback, though it omits rate limits, pagination, or score stability details.

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 uses three sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second explains the scoring methodology, and the third states the prerequisite. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague filler.

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 read-only analysis tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: score composition, plain-English reasoning, and data-source fallback. It could say more about the exact return shape, but the key gaps are closed well enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 query, limit, types, and language all documented in the schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('entity prominence') and explains the outcome: determining which entity matched for a name has the strongest Knowledge Graph presence. It is distinguishable from get_entity and compare_entities by its ranking focus, but does not explicitly name a sibling tool for 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?

The description implies usage by describing the analysis and ranking it performs, and it supplies a key prerequisite: Google data requires GOOGLE_KG_API_KEY, otherwise results come from Wikidata only. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to find_entities, compare_entities, or get_entity.

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