app_asset_library_videos_get_instance

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 that this is a read-only fetch, not what it returns, not auth or error behavior. The endpoint string is pure tautology.

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 not concise in a useful sense: the same route string is repeated twice inside parentheses, so half the text is pure redundancy with zero informational payload.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters including sparse-fieldset and include options, the description should explain return shape and relationship expansion. It explains nothing, leaving an agent unable to judge what a call will produce.

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% and every one of the 5 parameters (id, include, limit_placements, fields_appAssetLibraryVideos, fields_appAssetLibraryPlacements) is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, 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 is essentially the tool name restated as an HTTP route, duplicated parenthetically: "GET /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos/{id} (GET /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos/{id})". It conveys only that this fetches a single app asset library video, which the name already implies, and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like app_asset_library_videos_placements_get_to_many_related or app_asset_library_videos_update_instance.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the list/relationship variants in the sibling set. An agent gets no routing help whatsoever.

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