Get video

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the status lifecycle (UPLOADED -> PROCESSING -> READY/ERROR), explains when the content field is populated, mentions error details, and notes that processing time scales with video length. This is rich behavioral context that helps set expectations.

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 three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value: the core action, the polling use case, and a rate-limit warning. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the essential response behavior: status transitions, the content field condition, error details, and polling cadence. For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and rich annotations, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 input schema already documents video_id thoroughly, including its source and opaque nature, with 100% parameter coverage. The description text adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 description clearly states the tool fetches a single video by ID and reports its current processing status. It distinguishes itself from list_videos by focusing on a single resource and explicitly links to upload_video for polling, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool after upload_video to poll, describes the status flow, and provides a concrete polling constraint ('at most once every 5 seconds'). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies when not to use it (for listing multiple videos, covered by list_videos).

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