Compare entities

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the external Google KG dependency, the required API key, and that results silently narrow to Wikidata when it is absent. It does not describe result sizing beyond the 2-5 input bound.

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?

Front-loaded with the comparison scope and the compared dimensions, then the usage patterns, then the auth caveat. Two dense sentences with no filler, though the enumerated dimension list is long enough to slightly dilute the core action.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews what comes back (types, scores, gaps, facts, connections, profiles). Combined with input formats, cardinality, use-case routing, and the API-key fallback, an agent can select and invoke this correctly without further inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so the accepted ID formats (KG IDs, Wikidata IDs, names) are already documented in the schema. The description nonetheless reinforces name-resolution semantics with concrete examples ('hubspot', 'salesforce') and cross-references find_entities as the ID source, adding practical value over the schema alone.

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 (compare) and resource (entities) with an explicit 2-5 cardinality, then enumerates exactly what is compared: types, descriptions, prominence/readiness scores, gaps, key facts, connections, and profiles. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity or analyze_entity_prominence.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases with the exact argument pattern for each: same-name entities by passing IDs 'from find_entities', competitors by passing names like "hubspot" and "salesforce". It also states a prerequisite (GOOGLE_KG_API_KEY) and the degraded fallback behavior, so the agent knows when the tool will under-deliver.

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