Get specific videos by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the cover URL expiration (6 hours) and that a 404'd cover requires this call. This is a non-obvious behavioral trait that aids the agent in troubleshooting. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds a specific use case (cover refresh). No filler, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 fetch-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: the maximum count (20), the fact it returns full stats, and the refresh use case. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%: both video_ids and account are described. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'full stats' as a return property but not tied to parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 states a precise action ('Fetch up to 20 of your videos by id, with full stats') with a specific resource (videos) and selection criterion (by id). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_videos (which would list all) and search_my_videos (which searches by query). The title reinforces the purpose, and the description adds the crucial limit of 20, already present in schema, but stated clearly.

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 description gives an explicit use case: refreshing cover_image_url because those links expire after 6 hours, and the cover 404s needs this call. This implies when to use it over a cached URL. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like list_videos or search_my_videos, and does not state when not to use it. The usage guidance is strong for the specific scenario but not comprehensive.

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