supportpages_get_walkthrough

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces the safety profile with 'Read-only: never publishes, shares or starts generation,' which is meaningful given the tool exposes private review/playback links. It also discloses that transcript is conditional ('when available'). It stops short of noting any auth/visibility constraints on those private links.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and payload first, then the routing rule, then the safety guarantee. Every clause carries information and nothing repeats the schema.

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 the return-value enumeration is bonus rather than burden, and the read-only guarantee plus sibling routing covers the behavioral side. The unexplained 'workspace' parameter is the one real hole for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains walkthrough_id only implicitly ('by ID') and never mentions the 'workspace' parameter at all, leaving one of two parameters completely undefined across schema and prose.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('hosted video walkthrough') and an explicit inventory of what comes back: generation/visibility state, revision, assets, transcript, and private links. It also distinguishes itself from the Writer-generation path and notes it covers externally created videos, so the agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_operation for a Writer generation job; this tool also reads videos created outside Writer.' That names the alternative sibling and the condition under which each applies, leaving little to infer.

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