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

Annotations already signal not read-only/idempotent/destructive; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: accepted auth mechanisms (sk_ token or Bearer web session), a discovery workflow, and specific embed output markup. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. The auth caveat is a long parenthetical, but every clause contributes operational value. Slightly verbose in spots, but there is no fluff.

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?

It covers auth, the resource/action pattern, discovery, and embed output markup. However, there is no output schema and the description does not enumerate all resources/actions or describe response shapes generally. The 'call with no action to see what's available' instruction mitigates this gap but doesn't fully close it.

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?

The input schema already describes all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete examples like 'resource=player action=list', 'resource=embed', and clarifies that omitting action triggers discovery. The nested params object remains loose, but schema plus description are adequate.

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 starts with 'Manage video monetization' and then gives concrete usage patterns ('resource=player action=list', 'resource=embed'), making the tool's scope clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling monetization tools like payments or ad_settings, but the focus on video and embed markup provides enough 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 gives explicit instructions: 'Pass resource and action', 'call with no action to see what's available', and 'Use resource=embed to get the content-player unit markup'. It also provides a clear when-not: don't ask for an sk_ token when a working web session exists. No sibling alternatives are named, 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.