get_video

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing the expected return payload fields, which is especially useful since there is no output schema. It does not mention error conditions or auth requirements, but for a read-only single-resource get, the field list is meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the operation and resource, then uses a colon and comma-separated list to compactly convey the key return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or 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 simple one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, indicates singular scope, and lists the important result fields. The annotations cover the safety dimensions, so no additional behavioral caveats are strictly needed.

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 already documents the sole parameter video_id with 100% coverage, including acceptable formats (numeric id, /videos/ URI, or vimeo.com URL). The description only reinforces that this identifies the video to fetch and does not add new param-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the full details of one video') and enumerates the key fields returned: description, embed URL, thumbnail, privacy, tags, and transcode status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_videos, search_videos, get_video_stats, and get_video_privacy by emphasizing a single video's full detail set.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a caller has a single video_id and wants its details. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_videos or search_videos, nor does it state when not to use it, so usage guidance is present only by implication.

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