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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description reveals that source evidence and raw URLs are omitted, that a deterministic communityAction.next_action draft is returned, and that executing does not call an LLM. These are non-obvious behaviors that set correct agent expectations.

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 front-loads the core action, then logically covers return contents, omitted fields, the communityAction draft behavior, and the no-LLM guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

With no required parameters and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers identification method, return scope, omitted fields, a special computed draft, and behavioral cost (no LLM). Nothing critical to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the id is 'stable' and that reading is by id or slug, which is already reflected in the schema; it does not provide substantial new parameter meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('one public entity'), and the access method ('by stable id or slug'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_knowledge_graph (searching) and compare_knowledge_entities (comparison).

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 that the caller should already have a stable id or slug and want a single entity read, which is a weak usage condition. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, such as searching when the identifier is unknown or comparing when multiple entities are involved.

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