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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: the call returns immediately with a report_id and QUEUED status (async job semantics) and is a paid call requiring a WIA MCP Pro plan or credits. Cost and async-return disclosure are exactly the kind of context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the return contract and the cost/auth prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 an async submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what to submit, what comes back immediately, where the real result lives, and that the call costs money on a specific plan.

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 url and filename are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the URL must be publicly reachable and says nothing about filename, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — submit a publicly reachable audio/video URL for copyright screening — and implicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_screening as the retrieval path. An agent can tell this is the submission/start tool, not a retrieval or verification tool.

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?

Clearly frames the context: this starts a screening job, and the finished result comes from get_screening. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g. versus verify_report or re-submitting an already-screened URL), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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