media_of_the_day

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (media kind, duration, preview/listen link, artist, license, description) and the default date behavior. It does not describe edge cases such as invalid dates or missing media, but the disclosed behavior is solid for a read-style tool.

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 a single dense sentence, but every clause contributes: purpose, output fields, parameter behavior, and sibling relation. It is front-loaded and reasonably sized, though splitting into two sentences would improve scannability.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the optional input semantics, and explicitly lists all return fields. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect from the result.

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 already documents the date parameter fully (format and default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing optionality, the default-today behavior, and the purpose of browsing past picks, which goes beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Wikimedia Commons' Media of the Day'. It clearly identifies the tool as a video/audio counterpart to picture_of_the_day and enumerates what it returns, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without inspecting schemas.

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 explains when the optional date parameter is useful ('to browse past picks') and frames the tool as a counterpart to picture_of_the_day for 'daily content hooks'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with media_search or media_list, leaving some ambiguity about when those siblings should be preferred.

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