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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous semantics (returns immediately with report_id and QUEUED status), the credit cost model (1 credit per sampled window), which account is billed (the one owning the API key), and a workflow precondition. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: what it does, what comes back and how to poll, and what it costs. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information (report_id + QUEUED), the polling path, and the cost/precondition context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 both parameters are already documented in structured data; the description only restates the 'publicly reachable URL' requirement and says nothing about the optional filename parameter or its format-inference role. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Submit a publicly reachable audio or video URL for copyright screening') and immediately distinguishes itself from its sibling by naming get_screening as the polling counterpart. An agent can tell this is the submission entry point rather than a read/query tool without opening either 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 usage context ('Run this BEFORE publishing generated content') and explicitly routes the agent to get_screening for polling, which is the key workflow instruction. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement or naming alternatives for other screening cases, so it falls just under the top tier.

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