Show Accessibility Customizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it specifies the exact permission scopes required and the delegate_to_contact_permissions authorization model, plus the important nuance that only 'explicitly-set' customizations are returned (i.e. defaults are not included). It could have said more about what happens when nothing is set, but this is solid added context beyond the structured fields.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing permission block is verbose and formatted in a way that competes with the core purpose statement, and the closing 'Read-only account operation.' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation. Some economy is lost to redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the customization categories returned and covers authorization requirements thoroughly. The main gap is the absence of any indication of the response shape (e.g. whether defaults are returned as empty objects), but for a simple read tool it is largely complete.

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% with only two parameters (account, media_id), both already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 gives a specific verb (fetches) and resource (accessibility customizations) and enumerates the covered sub-areas: caption display/styling, transcript display, and audio description. It is clearly distinct from update_accessibility_customizations, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling read tools like get_customizations or get_appearance_customizations, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 call this versus the many other get_*_customizations siblings, nor any stated prerequisites beyond token permissions. The permission/auth section is the only context given, which is access requirements rather than usage selection.

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