Go Rocket

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: calling the tool itself does not charge, only opening the URL in a browser does, one-time payment with no account, and failed generations are auto-refunded. This reconciles the readOnlyHint with a money-moving workflow rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with the return value and the essential precondition, then constraints. The closing sentence about presenter/message/language selection and the ~15-minute turnaround is useful agent-facing context but is the least load-bearing part of an otherwise tight description.

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?

Covers purpose, precondition, charge semantics, and post-purchase flow, which is enough for a 1-parameter tool with no output schema and clear safety annotations. The one real gap is the unexplained claim_token, the only input the agent must supply.

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 0% and the single required parameter claim_token is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on where the token comes from or its format. The description must compensate here and does not, dropping below the baseline that a zero-parameter tool would earn.

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 precise verb and resource ('Returns the Stripe checkout URL for the first video of the sampled site'), which an agent can separate from get_video_sample (fetch a video) and get_sample_status (check readiness). The scoping to the first video and to the sampled site removes ambiguity.

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?

Explicit timing trigger is given: 'Call it once the sample is ready,' which ties directly to the get_sample_status sibling. No explicit exclusion or named alternative is stated, so an agent must infer that readiness should be checked with the other tool first.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the full state machine ('reading', 'ready', 'failed', 'purchased') and clarifying what each means, including that 'failed' means nothing to buy. It stops short of describing retry cadence or rate limits, but that's a smaller gap against existing 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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and origin first, then the return states. No filler, no repetition of the title, and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description carries the essential return-value information and links back to the initiating tool. The remaining gaps (obtaining claim_token, polling cadence) are minor given annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent traits.

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 single parameter claim_token has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and only partially does. "A sample started by get_video_sample" implies the token's provenance but never says explicitly that claim_token is the value returned by that call or what format it takes.

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 specific verb ("Poll") and resource ("a sample started by get_video_sample"), and explicitly anchors the tool to the sibling that creates the sample. An agent can distinguish it from get_video_sample and get_checkout_link without opening any schema.

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 phrasing "Poll a sample started by get_video_sample" implies the tool is used after starting a sample, and "Poll" hints at repeated invocation. However, it never states when to stop polling, which states warrant a retry, or how it relates to get_checkout_link once the sample is ready.

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

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false; the description adds the behavior that actually matters: 20-40 second page reads, the wait_seconds cap, the 'reading' state fallback, and the assurance that nothing is generated or charged by this call. That resolves the tension an agent would feel seeing readOnlyHint=false on a sampling tool.

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?

Front-loads the core contract (give URL, get blurred sample + claim token) before the operational detail, and every sentence carries information. The parenthetical describing the sample format is somewhat dense but earns its place by setting expectations for the output.

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 naming the returned artifacts (blurred sample, claim token) and the state field, plus the follow-up tool and timing. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly or handle its response is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description explains the runtime meaning of wait_seconds (the tool waits that long, otherwise returns state 'reading') rather than just its type range. The url parameter's role and the reason for the delay are also contextualized.

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 specific verb and resource plus the concrete return value: a blurred sample video ad built from a URL, with a claim token. It also names the sibling get_sample_status and the condition for switching to it, so the agent can tell it apart from get_checkout_link and get_sample_status without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly describes the async flow: call this first, if it returns state 'reading' poll get_sample_status with the claim token every few seconds until 'ready'. It also sets expectations that generation/charging happen later, not here, which tells the agent this is the entry point rather than a one-shot result fetch.

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