Media Ground Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the useful caveat that returned scores are uncalibrated, but it omits behavioral details such as dry-run defaulting, authorization requirements, expected source hash verification, and external-call limits.

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 with no wasted words. For a tool with a deeply nested request object and many behavioral controls, however, it is too terse to be considered appropriately sized.

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, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover some safety traits. Still, the description is incomplete for a complex media-grounding tool: it does not explain dry-run behavior, submission authorization, source-hash verification, or how to choose this tool over related media event tools.

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%, so the schema itself documents all parameters, including nested limits and required fields. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which establishes the baseline of 3.

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 has a verb and resource: 'Ground a query in source-supported intervals.' However, 'source-supported intervals' and 'uncalibrated scores' are abstract and do not clarify the media modality or distinguish this tool from siblings such as media_caption_events or media_count_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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no alternatives, and no preconditions for selecting this tool. An agent has no guidance beyond the name and schema.

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