Get entity

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world safety, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine behavioral context: an API-key requirement and, crucially, degraded results (Wikidata only) without it. That fallback behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs and is not present in the schema or 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?

The long opening enumeration is front-loaded and justified because no output schema exists, and the two follow-up sentences (usage mode, auth caveat) each earn their place. It is dense but not padded.

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 must carry return-value disclosure and it does so thoroughly, plus the auth/fallback caveat. Annotations handle the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as not noting the limit parameter's relevance to query-based lookups.

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 all five parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description adds the id-vs-query selection semantics (query returns the top match) but says nothing about limit, types, or language beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("Full profile of one entity") and enumerates the return contents (description, facts, connections, JSON-LD, etc.), which is unusually concrete. It doesn't explicitly name find_entities as the sibling it complements, but the 'id for a specific entity, or a query to profile the top match' framing distinguishes its single-entity profiling role.

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?

States clearly when to pass an id (specific entity) versus a query (top match to profile), which is real selection guidance for the two main parameters. It also discloses the GOOGLE_KG_API_KEY requirement and the Wikidata-only fallback. It stops short of naming find_entities/compare_entities as the alternatives for other tasks.

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