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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the type of data returned (metadata, processing state) and explicitly stating what is not returned (transcript segments). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object, includes a necessary exclusion clause, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (metadata and processing state), what it excludes (transcript segments), and the tool is simple enough that no further context is needed.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Media asset UUID. UUID string.' The description reinforces the parameter's role by saying 'one media-library asset', but it does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get metadata and processing state for one media-library asset'. It clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (media-library asset), and scope (one). The exclusion clause 'without returning transcript segments' also distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_transcript_get.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need metadata and processing state for a single asset. The phrase 'without returning transcript segments' provides guidance that this is not the tool for transcript retrieval, effectively directing users to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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