Get a media you sell on

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond the annotations by naming what the response actually contains (fees, extras, suggested competitive fees, performance). It does not mention what happens when the id does not exist or is not owned by the user.

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 description is one sentence, front-loaded with the triggering condition, and each enumerated field earns its place by telling the agent what comes back. It is slightly dense in the trailing enumeration but has no filler.

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, and the description largely makes up for that by listing the returned facets. The remaining gaps, such as not-found behavior and the relationship to the sibling media tools (get_catalogue_media, list_seller_medias), are minor for a single-id read tool whose safety profile is already carried by the annotations.

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?

The schema documents zero parameters (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden; it never mentions "id" explicitly. The phrase "one of the user's seller medias" does make the meaning of the single required id inferable as the seller-media identifier, but that inference is left unstated. Mitigating the gap, the input is a single obvious string identifier.

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 description uses a specific verb ("get ... in full") on a specific resource ("one of the user's seller medias") and enumerates the content returned (fees, extras, suggested competitive fees, performance). It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the many sibling reads the agent could reach for, notably growwer_get_catalogue_media and growwer_list_seller_medias.

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?

"Use this when you need ... in full" gives an implied condition for this tool. However, it never names an alternative: it does not say to use growwer_list_seller_medias to browse/summarize, to use growwer_get_catalogue_media for catalogue-side media, or what to do when the id is unknown, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.

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