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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the redundant GET verb; it does not mention response format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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 maximally short but under-specified; a single endpoint string is concise but not a usable definition. It lacks a front-loaded human-readable summary and omits information an agent needs to understand the tool's role.

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?

Even though an output schema and annotations exist, the missing purpose and usage context make the tool incomplete for an agent deciding between get_media, get_media_id, and related media endpoints. The description does not explain what the id identifies, what 'media' means, or when this tool should be called.

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?

The endpoint template identifies {id} as a path parameter, but the schema already defines path.id and workspaceId. With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description should clarify the meaning of 'id' and the resource being fetched, but it does not. workspaceId's meaning comes from the schema, not the description.

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 is only the raw endpoint 'GET /v1/media/{id}', which essentially restates the tool name and gives no human-readable explanation of what 'media' is or what the returned object represents. It conveys a read action by id but does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like get_media or get_media_id.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description only shows an HTTP route and gives no indication when to prefer this tool over get_media, post_media, or other sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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