get_v2_media_info_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals HTTP status code behavior (200, 404 for unavailable/deleted), missing usertags for video, and a caveat for ad posts. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or response shape beyond 'media object.' This is moderate transparency.

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 relatively short but disorganized. It starts with a technical HTTP path, then jumps to status codes, then a video-specific exception, then an ad post note, and ends with 'Get media object.' The information is present but not logically structured; a more front-loaded and organized presentation would be clearer.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide a complete picture: what it does, what it returns, and key limitations. It covers some behavioral aspects but does not describe the response structure or data fields beyond 'media object,' leaving the agent without enough context to confidently use the output.

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 has one required parameter 'id' with a title but no description. The tool description mentions 'by id' in the path and 'Get media object' but does not clarify what format or type the id expects (e.g., numeric string, media ID, etc.). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful semantic detail.

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 returns media info by ID and explicitly mentions HTTP status codes and edge cases. It differentiates itself from get_v2_media_info_by_url and get_v2_media_info_by_code by focusing on ID-based retrieval, and it distinguishes from /v2/media/by/id for ad posts. However, the purpose is slightly buried amid status code details, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides one explicit alternative: for promoted/ad posts, use /v2/media/by/id instead. This helps the agent avoid that edge case. However, it does not give general guidance on when to choose this tool over the many other media-info siblings (e.g., by code, by URL, v1 versions). More comprehensive usage context would improve the score.

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