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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and the description echoes 'Read-only,' but it also adds the REST endpoint and the returned object fields (title, assets, player URL, status flags). This gives useful expectations beyond the annotation, though it omits error/404 behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. The endpoint and field list add value without filler or 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?

For a one-parameter read-only GET, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input ID, the endpoint, and the fields returned, while the readOnlyHint covers safety. It does not document errors or auth, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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% and the videoId parameter already has a clear example and description. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'by id,' so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get a single video object by id') and lists the returned fields, which clearly separates it from list_videos and the status/analytics siblings. The by-id scope is explicit enough that an agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus apivideo_list_videos, apivideo_get_video_status, or apivideo_get_video_analytics. It only notes that the operation is read-only, which conveys safety but not selection criteria.

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