x_api_get_media_by_media_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly declares read-only risk, required bearer/OAuth tokens and scopes, explains environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, and lists common failure conditions and safety warnings.

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 organized into labeled sections that are easy to scan and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists, such as 'Use when: Get Media by media key' and 'Risk: read-only', but the length is justified by the detailed auth, failure, and response 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: expected response shape, auth prerequisites, failure conditions, environment-selection behavior, safety notes, and an example call. This is more than sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 has no descriptions for any of the 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It identifies media_key as a required path parameter and clarifies scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey in the environment-selection section. However, authorizationKey and the preferredAuthType enum are not explicitly explained beyond the auth prerequisites.

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 clearly states 'Get Media by media key' with a specific verb and resource, matching the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling x_api_get_media_by_media_keys, though the singular 'media key' hints at the distinction.

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 'Use when' section merely restates the tool name, providing no concrete use-case context. The 'Do not use when' section gives generic exploration guidance and recommends x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion, but it does not compare with media-specific alternatives like the plural media-keys tool.

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