Query Model Entities

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the non-obvious constraint that entity IDs and labels are bound to one exact inspection revision — important because stale references would silently mislead. It says nothing about paging behavior or limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the revision-binding caveat, then the downstream use. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Given an output schema, rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: revision scoping and how the result feeds study selections. It could add a note on pagination or on what happens with very large models, but nothing essential 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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents limit, cursor, dimension values and the revision pattern. The description only restates the presence of a dimension filter and adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List inspected model entities') plus the optional dimension filter, which separates it from siblings like query_results or list_jobs. It does not name an alternative tool outright, keeping it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Use returned IDs to define study selections' implies the workflow position (after inspect_model, before prepare_study) but never states when to choose this over a sibling or when not to call it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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