get_r_asset_asset_video_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries some behavioral burden. It identifies the operation as a GET, which implies a non-mutating read, and mentions 'required request headers,' hinting at authentication needs. However, it does not disclose rate limits, side effects, or what happens when required headers are absent, which limits transparency.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the exact HTTP route and a compact mapping of the two most relevant parameter buckets. Every sentence adds usable information.

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?

Given the 0% schema coverage and absent annotations, an agent cannot determine the exact names or formats of pagination parameters, filters, or required headers. Although an output schema exists, the request-side completeness is too vague for an agent to make a correct call without external documentation.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It provides helpful direction by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers. Yet it omits body semantics entirely and leaves specific accepted query keys and header names unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve asset video info' and names the exact endpoint 'GET /r/asset/asset_video_info'. It is clear enough that the agent knows what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_r_asset_asset_video_info_id or explain what 'video info' actually contains.

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 says how to invoke the endpoint ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers') but gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over its siblings. There are no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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