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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and safe; the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it costs nothing, it never mutates the packshot ('the pack never changes'), the output includes estimated cost, and generation is deferred to the user's treg token. It omits any statement about determinism of preset selection or plan size beyond variants, which keeps it at 4.

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 core scope is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a single ~130-word run-on that packs presets, prompts, request bodies, model tiers, hook variants, platform specs, compliance rules, and cost into one breath. It is information-dense but would be far easier to parse as structured clauses.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly (shot list, keyframe and image-to-video prompts, request bodies, hook variants, platform spec, cost). The only gaps are how presets interact when multiple are requested and whether 'auto' can be overridden per platform.

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% and every parameter is already documented, including the tier-to-model mapping and preset enum. The description restates that same mapping ('draft Seedance 1 Lite, standard Hailuo 2.3, premium Veo 3.1 Fast') rather than adding new semantics, so the 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 ('Plan AI product videos for one market and platform') plus a recognizable style reference and an explicit inventory of what it produces. It is clearly distinct from the sibling image_studio and from analytical tools like channel_plan.

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 closing line 'Free, read-only — generation runs on the user's treg token' makes the planning-vs-generation boundary explicit, which tells an agent when this tool stops and actual rendering begins. It does not name a sibling alternative or state exclusions (e.g., multi-market planning), so it stops short of a 5.

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