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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the output composition (stance distribution, AI card, 5 videos) and the dependency on search_alpha for the ID. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only get tool, the provided info is adequate.

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 is a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Entity 상세') and then lists the three output components and the prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering what the agent needs: it explains how to get the ID, what the response includes, and the key behavioral trait of returning exactly 5 videos. It could detail the response structure further, but for a simple get tool this is sufficient.

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?

The schema already fully describes the 'id' parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance on how to obtain the ID (via search_alpha), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent correctly supply the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool returns entity details including stance distribution, an AI-synthesized card, and 5 related videos. It specifies the resource (entity) and the specific verb 'detailed' (상세), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_alpha and list_topic.

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 explicitly instructs to first find the ID via search_alpha, providing a clear usage prerequisite and pointing to a sibling tool. This implies get_entity is for retrieving details after obtaining an ID, not for discovering entities, which is a distinct usage context.

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