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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an open-world generation operation. The description adds a useful constraint—the model is fixed and videoType must not be supplied—but it does not disclose asynchronous task behavior, result retrieval, cost, or any permission/rate-limit context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input modes, and includes a precise usage constraint without waste. Every sentence earns 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 10-parameter generative tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description covers the main modality and the fixed-model constraint. However, it omits how generation results are obtained, whether the operation is asynchronous, and other operational details an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters in detail. The description reinforces the main input modes and warns against supplying videoType, but it adds little syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Generate a video with Seedance 2.0" and names the accepted input modalities (primary image, up to 9 reference images, or reference video). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with close siblings such as nexscope_seedance_2_0_fast_video_generation or nexscope_seedance_2_5_video_generation, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool by describing supported input modes, but gives no explicit guidance on choosing this model over its fast, mini, or 2.5 siblings, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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