Show Sharing Customizations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: it discloses the required permission scope ('Read all folder and media data') and the delegation-token semantics with how authorization is resolved. The 'explicitly-set' caveat also warns that defaults are omitted, which annotations do not convey.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and contents efficiently. The permission block is boilerplate-heavy but genuinely relevant for a token-gated read, and it is visually separated from the purpose statement so it does not obscure the main point.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (enabled channels, tweet text, download type, page URL/title). Auth requirements and token delegation are covered, leaving only minor gaps such as what happens when no customizations are set.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (including the subtle 'account selects credentials, not a remote account ID' note), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond 'for the video', 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb (fetches) and resource (sharing customizations) and enumerates the concrete contents (channels, tweet text, download type, URL/title) tied to the share bar. It distinguishes this from the many other get_*_customizations siblings by naming the sharing domain, though it never names a sibling 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many adjacent tools (get_customizations, get_appearance_customizations, update_sharing_customizations). The word 'explicitly-set' hints that unset values are not returned, but the agent is left to infer both the use case and the read-only counterpart relationship.

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