gdelt_tv_visual_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool lists/returns a catalog; it does not disclose whether results are ordered, paginated, fixed, or filterable, nor what the returned entity records look like.

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 short sentences with the action and resource front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful clarification about the catalog being GDELT's own computer-vision object/activity taxonomy without padding.

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?

This is close to sufficient for a simple optional-parameter list tool, but with no output schema the description does not indicate what an entity entry contains or how ordering behaves beyond the limit parameter. It also lacks explicit context for choosing it over sibling GDELT TV tools.

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 single optional 'limit' parameter is already documented as 'Maximum entries to return, most-frequent first.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed given the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('GDELT Television 2.0 AI visual entities'), and further clarifies with 'computer-vision object/activity.' It is distinguishable from the sibling gdelt_tv_concept_entities, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as gdelt_tv_concept_entities or gdelt_tv_search. There are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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