Show Chapters Customizations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world safety, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact token scopes required and the delegate-token authorization behavior, plus the semantic that only 'explicitly-set' customizations are returned. No rate limits, pagination, or error behavior are mentioned.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the permission block that follows is relevant to invocation. The closing 'Read-only account operation' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and the block is somewhat boilerplate-heavy.

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 low-complexity read getter with rich annotations and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, and auth requirements adequately. No output schema exists, and the brief return description ('chapter list and its visibility') is sufficient at this complexity.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details for media_id or account, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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') and a precise resource ('explicitly-set chapter customizations (the chapter list and its visibility) for the media'), which separates it from the other get_*_customizations siblings. It never names or contrasts an alternative (e.g. update_chapters_customizations), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 permission prerequisites but no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives, despite many sibling getters (get_customizations, get_appearance_customizations, update_chapters_customizations). An agent must infer when this chapter-specific read applies.

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