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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the important side effects: it creates a listing, consumes one listing credit, may return an approveUrl requiring account-owner approval, and repeated calls do not create a second listing. Those details materially extend the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations rather than merely repeating them.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds only material operational details: credit consumption, connection-dependent approval behavior, progress checking, and idempotency. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 destructive, credit-consuming action with an output schema, the description covers the critical behaviors an agent needs: what it creates, what it costs, how approval works, where to check progress, and that retries are safe. Return-value details can be left to the output schema.

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 draftId parameter is already documented as the value returned by start_listing. The description adds only the broad phrase "for a draft," so the schema is doing nearly all of the parameter documentation work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — "Makes the video for a draft" — and immediately clarifies that this creates a listing and consumes a listing credit. It also distinguishes the progress-checking sibling by naming get_listing_status, so an agent can tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 explains the relevant usage context: the tool operates on a draft, behavior differs depending on whether the connection may create listings, and get_listing_status is the follow-up for progress. It does not explicitly compare against start_listing or watch_video, but the draft prerequisite and approval flow give clear guidance.

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