Get full media details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content accurately but does not explicitly state side-effects or idempotency. However, as a 'get' operation, the read-only nature is implied, and the description offers sufficient transparency for safe usage.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and outputs, followed by a usage guideline. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the simple tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers what it does, when to use, and what it returns. It lacks information on error conditions or response structure, but the return description is sufficiently detailed for most use cases.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by #id' and 'photo or video' which loosely maps to the 'id' and 'type' params, but does not formally describe each parameter's purpose, format, or constraints beyond the schema definition.

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 the tool retrieves 'full metadata for one photo or video by #id' and lists specific outputs (source/download URLs, video files with fps/resolutions, Pexels page URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that search/preview are sufficient for selection.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you need URLs or exact file variants') and when not to ('search lines + previews are enough for choosing'), providing clear decision criteria relative to sibling tools.

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