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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: records are caption-derived, carry Google Knowledge Graph MID codes, and the result set is most-frequent-first with a hard 10,000 cap. This gives the agent real behavioral context for the return set.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The first front-loads the purpose and the defining MID/caption detail; the second carries the routing guidance. Nothing is redundant 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description still covers what records are returned and how to consume them. For a zero-required-param list tool this is nearly complete, with only the absence of any time/coverage scoping note keeping it from a full 5.

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% for the single `limit` parameter, so the schema already documents default 100 and max 10000. The description restates exactly that, adding no new meaning over the structured field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (List), a precise resource (GDELT Television 2.0 concept-entity records), and a distinguishing attribute (Google Knowledge Graph MID codes recognized in captions). It is clearly separable from the sibling gdelt_tv_visual_entities, which it explicitly contrasts as visual rather than caption-based.

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?

It states downstream usage explicitly: returned MIDs feed gdelt_tv_search's `concept` filter, or use gdelt_tv_visual_entities for visual labels. This routes the agent between the two entity tools. However, it does not state a when-not condition for calling this listing tool itself (e.g. no time-range scoping), so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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