Get entity voice assistant exposure

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it fetches the whole exposure map and filters client-side, and critically discloses that an entity absent from the map is reported as False for every assistant — a non-obvious semantic.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then implementation note, then labeled 'Use when'/'Not for'/'Returns' sections. Well-structured and skimmable; the internal WS API detail is slightly verbose but arguably justifies the false-for-absent behavior.

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 read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, the absent-entity edge case, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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% and the single `entity_id` parameter is already documented as a full entity ID with an example. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented params 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get exposure flags for one entity across all voice assistants.' This precisely identifies the operation and its single-entity, all-assistants scope, letting an agent distinguish it from the sibling `entities_list_exposed_entities`.

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?

Explicit 'Use when: checking whether one entity is exposed, and to which assistants' plus 'Not for: the whole exposure map for one assistant — use `entities_list_exposed_entities`.' Names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it.

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