Show Engagement Customizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact permission scopes required and the delegation-token behavior (authorized as the assigned contact), which an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded and efficient, but the description then spends most of its length on a fenced permission block plus delegation details. That content is legitimate auth guidance, yet its bulk outweighs the one-line functional summary and buries the actual behavior.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the specific fields returned conceptually, and full authorization requirements. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being no indication of the response shape or what an empty/explicitly-unset result looks like.

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 media_id and account are already fully documented, and the description adds no per-parameter detail. The word 'explicitly-set' implies unset customizations are omitted from the result, which is a mild semantic addition, but it is not tied to any parameter. Baseline 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 first sentence states a specific verb (Fetches), resource (engagement customizations), scope (explicitly-set), and even defines the two sub-resources involved (end/pause Call To Action and timed annotation links). It distinguishes this from the generic get_customizations, though it never names the paired write tool update_engagement_customizations 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read counterpart to update_engagement_customizations, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_customizations or the other per-category getters. It does give the required token permissions, which is genuine usage guidance of a sort.

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