Retrieves detailed information for a specific stock photo or video by ID. [CRITICAL]: Use this tool AFTER performing a search with 'get_photos' or 'get_videos' to obtain the actual 'download_link' for the media item you want to use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the media (photo or video). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavior of returning the download_link and the required ordering, but does not mention other return details, potential errors, or required permissions. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects unstated.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by a clearly marked critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or clutter.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the key output (download_link). It stops short of fully describing the response structure or error conditions, but is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 description covers 100% of the parameter ('The ID of the media (photo or video)'). The tool description adds little beyond restating the ID's purpose, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the action ('Retrieves detailed information') and the specific resource ('stock photo or video by ID'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by requiring a prior search and focusing on a single media item.
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?
Provides explicit workflow guidance: use this tool AFTER get_photos or get_videos to obtain the download_link. This clearly states when to use it and names the alternative search tools, making the intended usage unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: two search endpoints differentiated by media type, one detail retrieval by ID, and one usage statistics. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
Three tools follow the 'get_' prefix pattern (get_photos, get_videos, get_media_detail), but 'usage_statistic' deviates from this convention. The naming is still readable and predictable overall.
Four tools is a well-scoped count for a stock media server, covering search, detail retrieval, and API monitoring without unnecessary bloat or excessive minimalism.
The tool surface fully covers the core workflow: searching for photos/videos, retrieving details and download links, and checking API rate limits. No critical operational gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.