Get ad videos

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds minor context ('reads from the ad video library'), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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 two sentences. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second redirects uploads, leaving no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a simple read-by-id tool, this is adequate but not complete, as agents may benefit from knowing the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description simply restates the need for ids, which is already in the schema, without adding semantic details for limit or offset parameters.

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 that the tool 'Reads videos from the ad video library by id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that uploads go via raw_request, setting it apart from other ad-related tools.

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?

It explicitly redirects uploads to raw_request, providing clear context for when not to use this tool. However, it does not mention when to use it over other read tools like get_ad_images, leaving some ambiguity for filtering or other criteria.

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