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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond that: unapproved videos are hidden from results unless the caller is a SuperAdmin, which explains unexpected 'not found' outcomes.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the visibility caveat follows. Every clause 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 simple single-item read with no output schema and a read-only annotation profile, the description covers the resource, lookup keys, and access caveat. It stops short of describing behavior for missing/invalid ids or what happens when both identifiers are omitted, which is the main remaining gap.

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 carries the burden. Saying 'by doc id or YouTube videoId' maps the two bare schema properties (id, videoId) to meaningful concepts, which is real added value. However, it does not clarify that neither parameter is required, whether both may be supplied, or which takes precedence when both are given.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one QuailOS TV video') and names the two lookup keys (doc id / YouTube videoId). The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_quailos_tv, so an agent can route correctly 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 'Non-approved hidden unless SuperAdmin' clause gives useful visibility context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. SuperAdmin privileges), and no named alternative against which to choose this tool.

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