get_online_features

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. 'Retrieve' safely implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose expected return shape, behavior for missing entities, errors, latency, or whether it uses the live online store.

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 entire definition is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every held phrase adds identity, and there no redundant words.

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 tool with only two fully documented parameters, this description is minimally workable: an agent can construct an invocation. However, without an output schema or annotations, it should describe the expected returned values and missing-entity behavior to be fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the entityKey property already includes an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship between entity and online features but does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving online features for an entity from Feast feature store. It is clear enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_feature_views, get_feature_view_details, and get_feature_freshness, which concern metadata or freshness rather than feature values.

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?

No usage guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus other Feast-specific siblings such as get_feature_freshness or get_feature_view_details. The appropriate context is only implied by the special term 'online features'.

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