Get a video

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It adds the field list, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about behavior when the id doesn't exist (error vs. empty) or how missing fields are represented.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The trailing field enumeration is slightly listy but earns its place as a stand-in for the absent output schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns and how it is keyed. Only the not-found/error behavior is unstated, which is a minor gap given the readOnlyHint.

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 100% with a single integer parameter already documented as 'The video's catalog id.' The description's 'by its id' adds no format, range, or validity detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one catalog entry) plus the lookup key (id), and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, path, length, rating). This distinguishes it from the deeper siblings like get_video_scenes or get_video_transcript, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'by its id' weakly implies you need a known id from a prior lookup, but there is no statement of when to use this versus search_videos for discovery or the get_video_* siblings for related data. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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