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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as how pagination works via the cursor parameter or any batch size limits. It is not contradictory, but it adds no value over 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 only four words, which is extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks any structural detail or front-loaded context. This is a case of under-specification, not good conciseness.

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 tool with a required array parameter, an optional pagination cursor, and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the output represents, how selection_keys map to media, or when to use this tool. The description provides no meaningful context for the agent to correctly invoke it.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It fails entirely. The required 'selection_keys' array and optional 'cursor' are not explained at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent to guess how to populate these parameters.

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 'Get media batch' is extremely vague. It does not specify what constitutes a 'batch', what 'media' refers to in this context, or how it differs from sibling tools like creatives_get (likely single retrieval) or creatives_list (likely list all). It fails to distinguish its purpose from those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus creatives_get or creatives_list. The description does not mention selection_keys, pagination via cursor, or any conditions that would make this the appropriate choice. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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