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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific fields returned, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like whether the video must be available in the user's region, whether it returns metadata for unpublished videos, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual repetition (English and Arabic) is somewhat redundant for an AI agent but not harmful. The Args section is clear and minimal. It earns a 4 because the bilingual content adds length without much additional value for an AI agent, but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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 has an output schema, so return values are already documented structurally. The description adds the key fields (title, description, duration, quality, categories, episode info, watch URL) which helps the agent know what to expect. With one simple parameter, readOnlyHint annotation, and output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is not specifying where the video_id comes from or any prerequisites, but this is minor for such a simple tool.

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 compensate. It does: it explains that video_id is 'The numeric ID of the video' and provides an example (953659). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type 'integer'. The description also lists what the returned details include, which helps the agent understand the parameter's role. However, it doesn't specify the ID's source (e.g., from search results or URLs), which would be slightly more helpful.

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 purpose: getting detailed information about a specific video on Al Jazeera 360, and lists the specific fields returned (title, description, duration, quality, categories, episode info, watch URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_series_details and get_latest_episodes, which target different resources.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need details about a specific video by its numeric ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the clear resource focus (video vs series vs episodes) provides adequate guidance. The bilingual text reinforces the intended use case.

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