get_video_entitlements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but give no reason; the description supplies the missing context that the call 'may initialize first-use entitlements,' i.e. an implicit write side effect. It also discloses the important output-filtering rule about legacy video_units being internal settlement data, which is non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then the display constraint, then the initialization side effect. The most decision-relevant constraint (what may not be shown) is front-loaded ahead of the softer side-effect note.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and only partly does so: it names two concepts (universal credits, legacy video_units) but not the actual field names or shape of the response, so an agent still cannot know exactly what to render. Adequate for a simple zero-arg query, but not 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent or discuss parameters.

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+resource: 'Query video entitlements through the membership backend,' which an agent can distinguish from the sibling entitlement tools (music, speech) by the video resource. It does not explicitly name the siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: the description never says when to call this versus estimate_video_cost, generate_video, or the other entitlement tools. The only conditional language ('legacy video_units... must not be shown') is output-handling policy, not tool-selection guidance.

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