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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful scope boundary that it returns metadata/embed URL and does NOT download video media, which prevents misuse. No rate-limit or auth context, but none is needed for a public read endpoint.

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?

One sentence, two clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 described. For a single-param read tool, the description covers purpose, scope boundary, and sibling routing, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as a numeric GhanaWeb TV video ID. The description reinforces 'one numeric video ID' but adds no format, range, or discovery syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Fetch) and resource (public GhanaWeb TV metadata + YouTube embed URL), scopes it to a single numeric video ID, and explicitly excludes media download. An agent can distinguish it from ghanaweb_videos and ghanaweb_video_sections without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use ghanaweb_videos to find videos and ghanaweb_video_sections to discover sections. The condition that selects this tool (you already have a video ID) is implied by 'for one numeric video ID' and the named alternatives make the boundaries clear.

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