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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world nature. The description adds genuine value beyond them by clarifying scope: it returns 'public metadata' and an embed URL, and explicitly states it does NOT download video media, which prevents a plausible misuse.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key capability comes first and the negative constraint is appended efficiently.

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 fields need not be enumerated, and for a one-parameter read-only tool the description covers what is returned and what is not. It is nearly complete, only lacking guidance on ID provenance.

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 must carry the load. It adds that the ID is numeric and refers to a GhanaWeb TV video, which is useful but thin, with no format examples or constraints on the string parameter.

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 (Get) and resource (public metadata + YouTube embed URL for a GhanaWeb TV video ID). The 'numeric ... video ID' phrasing clearly marks it as a single-item lookup, distinguishing it from the sibling list tool ghanaweb_videos.

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 requirement for a numeric video ID implies the tool is for fetching one known item, which hints at how it differs from the list-style ghanaweb_videos. However, it never names an alternative or states where to obtain the ID, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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