app_asset_libraries_videos_get_to_many_relationship

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: not the read-only nature, not pagination semantics for the 'limit' parameter, not rate limits, not the shape or count of what is returned. The bare route is the only signal.

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 sentence is printed twice inside parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the raw route.

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 relationship-list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is listed and how pagination works. Instead it supplies only the route, leaving the agent without the context needed 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 both parameters ('id' and 'limit') are already documented in the schema; the description adds no format, scope, or pagination detail beyond it. Baseline 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 verbatim restatement of the tool name rendered as an HTTP route: 'GET /v1/appAssetLibraries/{id}/relationships/videos'. It conveys no more than the name already does, and does not explain the relationship-vs-related distinction against siblings like app_asset_libraries_videos_get_to_many_related.

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 at all, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing between this relationship endpoint and its near-identical sibling app_asset_libraries_videos_get_to_many_related. The agent is left to infer everything from the path string.

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