get_video

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to justify them. It still adds useful behavior: the return is JSON text and absent optional metadata is returned as null, which tells the agent how to interpret partial results. The closing 'Does not modify the video' largely restates readOnlyHint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then input forms, then behavioral notes. Only the final 'Does not modify the video' clause is wasted since annotations already declare it.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing piece an agent needs: which fields are returned and that unavailable optional metadata appears as null. Nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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% and the parameter description already spells out 'HTTPS Loom share URL or 32-character hexadecimal video ID'. The description restates the accepted input forms but drops the 32-character hexadecimal detail, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. 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 (Read) and resource (a Loom video) and enumerates exactly which metadata fields come back (name, owner, duration, creation date, description). That field list implicitly separates it from get_transcript and get_frames, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 makes clear this is a metadata lookup and notes it takes a share URL or video ID, so correct usage is inferable. It never states when to prefer it over get_transcript or get_frames, nor any conditions where it should not be used.

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