Media Count Events

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: counts derive only from 'admitted records in submitted evidence,' overlapping records are counted distinctly, and frame sampling leaves gaps where events may be missed. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures not present in 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, and the second paragraph adds distinct caveats rather than padding. The dense jargon costs a little clarity, but nothing is redundant or wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return values. But for a tool with a 17-property nested request, it never explains the dry_run-default-true / authorize_submission submission workflow or when this is preferable to the many sibling event tools, leaving a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single nested 'request' object carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or semantics for parameters like dry_run, authorize_submission, or the limits block. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already documents everything.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Count ... occurrences of a target in bounded source windows.' An agent can grasp that this counts target events within windowed media. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('retained inferred occurrences') and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from near-siblings like media_caption_events or media_ground_events.

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 prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite many overlapping event/analysis siblings. The second paragraph states counting caveats rather than selection conditions, so an agent gets no help deciding between this and media_ground_events or media_caption_events.

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