Show Media Engagement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact permission scope required ("Read detailed stats") and the delegated-permission path via all:delegate_to_contact_permissions, which is real operational information an agent needs before calling.

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 sentence is front-loaded and tight, but it is followed by a bulky verbatim permission boilerplate block that consumes most of the text. The boilerplate is useful for auth but is not proportionate to a two-parameter read tool.

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 simple read-only, single-required-param tool with no output schema, auth and scope coverage are adequate. What is missing is any indication of what "engagement data" contains (plays, engagement rate, heatmap?), which the agent needs since no output schema defines the return shape.

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, including the account parameter's non-obvious meaning ("selects credentials, not a remote account ID"). The description only restates that lookup is by media-id and adds nothing on format or ID variants, so 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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Retrieve engagement data for a video") and specifies the identifying key (media-id). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as get_media_analytics, get_media_stats, or get_engagement_customizations, so an agent cannot tell which engagement-adjacent tool returns what.

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 names the required permission but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among the many media/analytics siblings. The agent must infer that this is the per-video engagement endpoint rather than a customization or stats endpoint.

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