meta_ads_videos_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the read-only nature, asynchronous processing, rejection of creatives referencing in-progress videos, and the need to poll until ready. It also explains the nested status object and per-stage details, providing substantial behavioral context beyond basic tool function.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides valuable information. It balances detail (status object, polling behavior, timing) without unnecessary fluff, achieving excellent conciseness and structure.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the returned fields (status, id, title, length, created_time), the nested status object, and how to interpret readiness. It also places the tool within the broader workflow, covering what is needed for effective use. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 both parameters (video_id and account_id) fully described. The description adds minimal extra parameter semantics, only referencing video_id in the context of polling. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage; the description does not significantly enhance 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Gets an uploaded video's processing status and metadata' with a specific verb, resource, and list of returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_ads_videos_upload and meta_ads_videos_thumbnails by describing its role in the upload workflow.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'poll this tool until the nested status object reports the video is ready... before calling meta_ads_creatives_create with video_id.' It also mentions the alternative for the next step ('pick a thumbnail via meta_ads_videos_thumbnails') and notes typical processing time, providing clear context and anticipated usage.

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