Get Video Entity

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so there is no contradiction. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: results include every interaction and every linguistic reference resolved to the entity, returned in chronological order. This tells the agent what kind of data to expect and how it is organized.

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 description is two compact sentences with no repetition or fluff. It front-loads the core function, then provides usage context and a concrete example in parentheses. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines what the tool returns, the prerequisites, the input IDs, the output scope, and the ordering. An agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly and understand the result.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions explaining where the IDs come from (understand_video/transcribe_video for video_id; get_video_map or search_video/find_moment for entity_id). The tool description reinforces this relationship but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns everything the Video Map knows about one specific entity' and clarifies that entity means 'a person/product/object'. It also differentiates itself from siblings like get_video_map and search_video/find_moment by emphasizing the full chronological history rather than an isolated moment.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this after get_video_map or search_video/find_moment surfaces an entity id.' It further clarifies the use case—full history across the video—and contrasts it with seeing 'one isolated moment,' which helps the agent choose between this and more narrowly scoped tools.

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