afl_content_video_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying 'Auth: none needed' and detailing the exact return fields. This goes beyond the structured hints and provides practical invocation context.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, each serving a purpose: action, return shape, and auth. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a simple single-id get operation with rich annotations, the description is sufficient: it names the resource, return format, and auth. It lacks error-handling notes, but these are not essential for this low-complexity tool.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the verb 'by id', so it does not go beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a single video content item by id') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like afl_content_video_list and other content-type get tools by explicitly scoping to a single video item.

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 description conveys when to use the tool (when you have an id and need a specific video item). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling list tool and the id parameter requirement.

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