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

readOnlyHint=true is already in the annotations, so 'Read-only' repeats structured data and earns no credit. The only added context is the underlying endpoint (GET /videos/{videoId}); nothing is said about not-found behavior, auth, or rate limits, though the annotation lowers the bar for a simple read.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with purpose, then safety, then endpoint. No sentence is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 parenthetical listing of returned fields (title, assets, player URL, status flags) usefully compensates, and the single required parameter is fully documented. Error behavior for an unknown id is the only notable omission.

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% and the schema already provides the videoId parameter along with a concrete example value. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Get a single video object by id') and enumerates what the object contains (title, assets, player URL, status flags), which separates it from list_videos and the analytics/status siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' – the agent can infer this is the fetch-one-object path – but there is no statement of when to prefer it over apivideo_get_video_status, apivideo_get_video_analytics, or apivideo_list_videos, and no prerequisites are given.

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