lemma_get_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at the returned fields but does not state failure behavior (e.g., 404/null on missing entity), auth requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation this is a notable gap.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the parenthetical field list is relevant without being redundant.

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 single-param, simple lookup tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not mention error cases or return shape, so an agent cannot fully anticipate edge behavior.

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% and the only parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the entity_id format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 ('Get'), a resource ('entity'), and the key qualifier ('by ID'), plus field hints (name, legal structure, NPI, address). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from sibling list/get tools, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'By ID' implies you should call it when you already have an entity_id, but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of sibling tools like lemma_list_entities for discovery.

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