bunny_get_video_library

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful list of returned settings but no new behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects; it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence: the core action ('Retrieve video library details by ID') comes first, followed by a compact enumeration of what is returned. No filler or tautology is present.

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 read-only GET with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states the needed identifier, the optional access-key flag is in the schema, and the 'including...' list tells the agent what content to expect even without an output schema.

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?

Both parameters are already described fully in the schema: id has type and minimum constraints, include_access_key has a direct boolean description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 100% coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve video library details'), narrows the scope by ID, and then lists the configuration categories returned. This clearly distinguishes it from bunny_list_video_libraries (enumerating libraries) and create/update siblings.

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 'by ID' phrasing gives a clear contextual trigger: use this when you have a specific library ID and need its full configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses the strongest possible guidance, but the intended usage is clear.

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