app_asset_libraries_videos_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, no note on whether included relationships expand the payload. For a 12-parameter read endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a complete gap.

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?

It is short, but the economy comes from under-specification rather than tight writing, and the endpoint is duplicated twice with no added information. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to load.

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?

A 12-parameter collection endpoint with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain what is returned and how filtering/sorting/inclusion interact. The description supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters (id, sort, limit, include, filters, fields, limit_placements) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no semantic value beyond that, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is a bare restatement of the HTTP method and path, duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It implies 'list videos for an app asset library' only through the URL tokens, never stating the purpose in prose. This is tautological with the tool name rather than a clear statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no differentiation from siblings such as app_asset_libraries_videos_get_to_many_relationship or app_asset_library_videos_get_instance. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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