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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the state machine (uploading, checking, ready, failed, expired) and the operational precondition that only ready assets may be quoted — behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its states front-loaded before the operational constraint. Nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the state vocabulary the agent needs to interpret that output. It is slightly thin on the polling/lifecycle relationship to siblings like get_job and start_edit, but is otherwise sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.

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 the single 'id' parameter is documented as a UUID coming from create_upload or use_library_video. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves it at the baseline.

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 names the resource (an uploaded video or photo) and the exact return concept (status), then enumerates the five possible states, so an agent knows precisely what question the tool answers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling (get_job), which keeps it from a 5.

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 clause 'Quote only with ready assets' implies a polling-then-proceed workflow and gates a downstream action, which is real guidance. However, it never states when to call this versus get_job, or whether repeated polling is expected, so usage is only implied rather than spelled out.

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