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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: token cost with a confirm-first gate, a 1–2 minute latency, and the guarantee that no video is produced. That is meaningful context for a non-idempotent, open-world tool. The one gap is that destructiveHint=true is never explained — the description frames the only cost as '1 token', without saying what the call consumes or changes if the user proceeds.

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 output contract is front-loaded and every clause carries information — length, doubt-per-script, deliverables, format, placement, text-only, cost, latency. The main weakness is that it is delivered as one long run-on sentence, so the cost/latency warning can be skimmed past.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does well by enumerating the script anatomy (shot-by-shot visuals, on-screen text, optional voiceover, aspect ratio, placement). The missing piece is edge-case behavior: both inputs are optional with no required parameter, yet the description never states what happens if neither check_id nor product_url is provided.

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 explains check_id (reuses a finished check_product_page) and product_url. The description adds only the general principle 'using only facts from the page'; it says nothing about which parameter takes precedence, or what happens when both, or neither, are supplied. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write three 15–25 second product video scripts for a product page') plus the differentiating constraint 'Text only — no video is generated', which separates it from a video-generation or video-analysis sibling like analyze_video_ad. An agent knows exactly what artifact it gets back before opening the 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?

Gives clear operational guidance ('Uses 1 token — confirm with the user first', 'Takes 1–2 minutes') and an implicit precondition (facts come from the product page, or a check_id). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, e.g. whether to run check_product_page first rather than this tool when the user only wants an audit, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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