get_r_asset_asset_video_info_id

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Retrieve' and the HTTP verb; it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error semantics. The agent is left with no behavioral context beyond the implicit read-only GET.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core purpose and endpoint first, then a clear directive on parameter placement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The schema is extremely loose (0% coverage, all properties optional) and annotations are absent, so the description must supply the input contract. It gives high-level placement guidance but omits the meaning of {id}, any required query parameters, header requirements, or constraints. An agent would struggle to construct a valid request from this definition alone.

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 schema is generic (all optional objects with additionalProperties), so the description's mapping of 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers' adds meaningful structure. However, it does not specify actual parameter names, formats, or which are required for this endpoint, so compensation is only partial.

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 clear verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('asset video info'), and the exact endpoint with an {id} placeholder. This distinguishes it from the list variant get_r_asset_asset_video_info, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 gives placement guidance (path_params for IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for required headers) but provides no when-to-use versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell why to pick this tool over the list sibling or other asset read tools.

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