get_video_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'List video assets' only implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination, return format, or any side effects. It lacks details that would help an agent understand what to expect.

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 extremely concise with no fluff, but it is under-specified as a sentence fragment. While brevity is a strength, the three-word phrase lacks the structure of a complete description and conveys minimal helpful context.

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?

Despite the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the returned list contains, whether it includes metadata, supports pagination, or requires specific permissions, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.

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 fully describes the only parameter, customerId, as 'Google Ads customer ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 'List video assets' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves video assets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_image_assets and get_video_report, despite not elaborating on the asset details.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_image_assets or get_video_report. There are no contextual cues, exclusions, or explicit use cases given.

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