gmb_v4_accounts_locations_media_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, error behavior), but it does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the resource path and then states the action clearly.

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 get operation with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise adequate for the tool's simplicity, given that the URL pattern and method convey the core meaning.

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 input schema has a single 'name' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates somewhat by providing the path template `{name=accounts/*/locations/*/media/*}`, indicating that the name parameter must be a resource path of that form. However, it does not explain the semantics beyond the template, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Gets a media item' with the specific resource path pattern, making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like media_create, media_delete, media_list, and media_patch by explicitly describing a get operation.

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?

No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The 'GET' method and resource path imply its use for retrieving a single media item, but the description does not state when to choose this over media_list or provide other context. Usage is only implied.

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