Get Asset by Render ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Read operation.' merely restates that. It does add the useful behavioral fact that a single render can produce multiple assets (video, thumbnail, poster), but says nothing about authentication via the account parameter, rate limits, or response shape.

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 domain rationale is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the endpoint behavior follows. It is slightly padded by the 'Base URL' block with an inert href and a redundant trailing 'Read operation.' line, but overall it is compact and well ordered.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description supplies the missing domain context (why a render id, why multiple assets). The only real gap is the return shape — no output schema exists and the description never says what the returned asset list contains.

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% (id = exact resource ID, account = named private account), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the implicit note that the render id may resolve to more than one asset; the baseline 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 ('look up one or more assets by the render id') and motivates why the render id is the only identifier known at creation time, which implicitly separates it from get_asset. It does not name the sibling get_asset explicitly, so an agent must infer the alternative rather than being routed to it.

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?

Usage context is clearly established: use this when assets were just created and the render id is the only known identifier (from the render request, status request, or webhook). No explicit exclusion or named alternative is given, so it falls just short of the top band.

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