Find entities

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are sorted by Google's result score highest-first, and there is a credentialed path (GOOGLE_KG_API_KEY) versus a degraded Wikidata-only fallback without it. That auth/degradation disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields followed by the auth caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical definition could be tightened slightly.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it discloses the auth-dependent data source. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the ranking. Only the Wikidata fallback's effect on field availability is left implicit.

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%, so limit, query, types, and language are already fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces result ordering and the Google-only nature of typed results but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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+resource ("Find all Knowledge Graph entities") and clarifies the concept as "the entities behind Google's knowledge panels." It also enumerates the returned fields, which makes the tool's scope obvious. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like get_entity, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied by "associated with a name" (a name-based lookup, versus the ID-based get_entity), but no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. The auth-fallback note gives operational context but not routing guidance.

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