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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the specific links returned (url, external_url, media_url) and the `source_type` field, which helps the agent understand the response structure. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description aligns with these (no contradiction).

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get one audiovisual record by id') and lists return fields efficiently. Every phrase adds value; there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple input (one integer ID), the detailed list of returned fields, and the absence of output schema, the description is quite complete. It lacks only explicit usage guidance (e.g., when to prefer search_audiovisual) and notes on optional/conditional fields like transcription.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the `audiovisual_id` parameter beyond its type/integer, though the purpose is clear from context (the record's ID). For 1 parameter with 0% coverage, the description provides no extra semantics, earning a baseline 3.

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 gets one audiovisual record by ID, and enumerates all the fields returned (description, transcription, creator, duration, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like list_audiovisual or search_audiovisual.

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 when you have a specific audiovisual_id and need full details, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_audiovisual for listing, search_audiovisual for filtering), nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., not all items have transcription).

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