get_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does add useful context by disclosing the HTTP endpoint and the required Bearer authentication. However, it says nothing about what is returned (image bytes vs. URL/metadata), error behavior, or cache/rate characteristics, which matters for a retrieval tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized under ENDPOINT, PARAMETERS, and AUTHENTICATION headers. Slightly over-structured for a three-parameter get, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Auth requirement and endpoint are covered, which is valuable given no annotations. But for a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description never says what the caller receives back or how media is identified beyond the ID — a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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%, so the schema already documents media_id, width, and height. The description's PARAMETERS block merely restates the schema text ("Thumbnail width/height") and adds no new meaning such as units, defaults, or aspect-ratio behavior. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Retrieve Media by ID") and clarifies what Media represents (an image for an Event listing), which helps an agent understand the resource. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely-named siblings upload_media and get_media_upload, so the boundary between retrieval and upload flows is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_media_upload or upload_media. The agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves already-uploaded media rather than inspecting an upload session.

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