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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a workflow hint that some options require another call, but it is too vague to be confidently actionable.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is a comma splice that is not front-loaded with a clear action. It is concise but under-informative rather than well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify what the listed options contain or how they relate to sibling generation tools, leaving gaps for an agent deciding how to proceed.

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 100%, and the single optional 'reasoning' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that structured field, so the baseline 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 phrase 'All the options to generate videos' identifies the resource but does not use a clear verb and leaves 'options' ambiguous (models, formats, parameters?). It does not clearly differentiate this listing tool from siblings like generateVideoTool or videoFunctionTool, though the title helps.

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 description gives no explicit instruction on when to call this tool versus generateVideoTool, videoFunctionTool, or videoStatusTool. The clause 'some tools might require another call to generateVideoFunction' is vague and does not tell the agent when to use this tool or when not to.

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