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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the actual payload shape (multiple stills with timestamps vs. a single image), which is the key behavioral fact for this tool. It omits things like frame-selection strategy or size/quality limits.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage rationale following. Two sentences with no filler, though the parenthetical example list ('outfit, setting, framing, text on screen') is slightly padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value context, and it does so adequately by describing frames vs. single image. For a simple two-parameter read tool with clear annotations, nothing critical is missing, though return size/limits remain unstated.

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 100%, so both 'asset' and 'frames' are already documented in the schema, including defaults and max. The description mentions frame extraction generally but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('SEE the visual content of an asset') and immediately distinguishes behavior by asset type: still frames with timestamps for video, the image itself for images. This separates it cleanly from siblings like get_asset_download_url or get_post_preview.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: inspect what an asset shows before recommending, renaming or tagging it, or to display it to the user. It does not name a specific alternative tool or an exclusion condition, which keeps it short of a 5.

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