Get VOD video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description's "[READ]" merely duplicates the annotation. No permission requirements, error behavior, or lookup semantics are disclosed beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but brevity here stems from under-specification rather than efficiency. The single fragment carries no actionable content for an agent.

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?

A read tool with one undocumented required parameter, no output schema, and no guidance is left entirely to inference. The description does not supply the semantics that the missing schema coverage and context demand.

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 single parameter video_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies it via the URL template /videos/{video}. No format, ID source, or validation meaning is added, leaving the only parameter effectively undocumented.

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 essentially a restatement of the tool name plus the raw HTTP method and path ("[READ] OpenAPI: GET /videos/{video}"). It conveys only that a video is fetched, without stating scope, return content, or how it differs from siblings like list_vod_videos or get_vod_channel — a near-tautology.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent gets no signal about choosing this over list_vod_videos or invoke_vod_api.

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