Show Appearance Customizations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: the required permission scope, the delegation-token alternative, and the 'explicitly-set' semantics (i.e., it excludes inherited/default values). It does not describe what happens when no customizations are set, which would push it higher.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the purpose with the field list, but half the text is a boilerplate permissions block that repeats the annotation-supplied read-only nature. The permission details are useful; the trailing 'Read-only account operation' line is redundant with readOnlyHint.

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?

No output schema exists, so the field enumeration compensates. Auth scope requirements are spelled out. Adequate for a simple 2-param read tool, though it could note the return shape and the unset-value behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents media_id and account. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what a 'hashed ID' looks like or the account-selection semantics). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fetches'), resource ('explicitly-set appearance customizations'), and enumerates the fields (player color, gradient, rounded corners, control contrast, customer logo). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_customizations, get_playback_customizations, and get_thumbnail_customizations, though it does not name those alternatives 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 'explicitly-set' qualifier implies this returns only overridden values, but the description never states when to use this vs. other get_*_customizations siblings or the generic get_customizations. Usage is implied, not instructed.

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