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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: images come back downscaled as image content, while videos return a signed link plus metadata instead. The one gap is that the downscaling limits and any size/rate constraints are not mentioned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that spends no words on restating the name or title. The contrast between image and video return behavior is packed efficiently into one clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does so clearly for both media types. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented maxEdge parameter, which matters for agents wanting a higher-resolution look at an asset.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. 'Downscaled' vaguely gestures at maxEdge but never explains that maxEdge controls the output resolution, its default, or bounds; mediaId's UUID format is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ('returns a library image as image content') and immediately distinguishes behavior for the two media types. An agent can tell it apart from list_media (enumeration) and view_storyboard_images (storyboard-specific) without opening the schema.

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 'so you can inspect it' implies the use case is visual inspection of a single media item, and the video branch hints that this tool is still the right call for videos. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_media or view_storyboard_images, nor states prerequisites such as needing a known mediaId.

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