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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). Beyond that, the description adds genuinely non-obvious response semantics: directMediaUrl/media.url is the playable file while audioAccess.waveformVisualizationUrl is UI-only JSON amplitude data. That prevents an agent from misusing a field as a playable source. No auth or rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action, then the field semantics that matter most, then the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully clarifies the ambiguous media URLs. For a 3-param read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to complete; only the lack of explicit differentiation from other getters leaves a small 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 description coverage is 100%, including the enum values for presentation and their meaning, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about mediaId/workspaceId/presentation syntax, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 detailed information about a specific media object.' An agent knows this is a single-item detail fetch, distinct from list_media. It does not explicitly contrast with other single-item getters like get_asset, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives one explicit routing rule: 'Call listen_to_audio when the agent needs to hear the file,' which is the key adjacent-tool decision for this resource type. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_asset or list_media, so the when-not side is incomplete.

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