get_video_discovery

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). Beyond that, the description discloses the response shape — status, videos, cursor, error — which is genuinely useful because no output schema exists, and the presence of a cursor hints at pagination semantics worth knowing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return payload appended. Nothing is wasted, though the return-field list is a slightly breathless clause rather than structured.

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 single-parameter read with full schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. It lacks only guidance on failure modes (what happens when the ID is unknown) and on how the cursor field should be consumed, which are minor for this complexity level.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including format, pattern, and the note that it is "returned by a listing tool." The description adds no syntax, format, or error-case detail about the id, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get one video discovery by ID") plus the payload it returns, so an agent knows exactly what this does. It does not need to differentiate strongly from the listed siblings (list_*, search_*, get_job), which are clearly distinct operations, though it never explicitly contrasts with a hypothetical list-video-discoveries tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: "by ID" plus the schema note that the ID comes from a listing tool tells the agent this is a single-record fetch after a listing call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for bulk retrieval.

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