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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description's 'Read' and 'Retrieve' align with these hints but add no further behavioral detail such as error handling or return format, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a short guidance line. It contains no redundant information and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The tool is a simple get operation, and the description sufficiently explains what it does and how to invoke it. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap, though specifying that it returns a paragraph object could have added slight completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described referencing their source lists (cms_list_videos and cms_list_video_paragraphs). The description's mention of 'paragraph id' and the context list reinforces but does not add beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function: 'Retrieve one video paragraph by paragraph id.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('video paragraph'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cms_get_video and cms_list_video_paragraphs.

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 provides direct usage guidance: retrieve a single video paragraph given the paragraph id, with context on the required ids. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the specificity makes the appropriate use case clear.

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