meta get uploaded video

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'direct video read alone never proves membership or readiness' and 'Bounded pagination; not_found is not success.' This gives agents important caveats about interpreting results and pagination, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, fallback strategy, an important caveat, and pagination/not_found semantics. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the key behavioral subtleties: membership verification, bounded pagination, and not_found semantics. It could be more explicit about the exact meaning of 'video processing' and how pagination is exposed, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover both adAccountId and videoId fully, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add substantive parameter-level detail; the reference to 'video title' is not backed by a title parameter in the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding.

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 clear directive: 'Check video processing and membership in the selected account library.' This names the resource (uploaded video) and the specific checks (processing, membership), and 'account-scoped lookup' signals its scope. It doesn't name sibling tools like meta_list_ad_videos or meta_get_video_sources, and leaves 'processing' and 'membership' somewhat undefined, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives practical usage hints: use the video title if the first page misses the ID, and remember bounded pagination and 'not_found is not success.' However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools or when to avoid it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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