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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior: extraction is asynchronous and returns a jobId that must be polled elsewhere. It omits rate limits, credit cost, or failure modes, which keeps it below a 5.

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: capability first, input requirements second, async follow-up last. Nothing is padded and the downstream call is placed where an agent needs it.

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 usefully discloses that the immediate return is a jobId rather than extracted data, closing the biggest gap for this tool. It leaves residual unknowns such as media size/duration limits or processing latency, but the async contract is complete.

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 all three parameters (url, prompt, schema) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the prompt/schema-or-both rule without adding format, syntax, or size guidance, so the baseline of 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 ("Extract structured data from a video URL using AI") and names the companion tool supadata_check_extract_status, which separates it from siblings like supadata_transcript or supadata_scrape. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the 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?

Explicitly states that the caller must supply a prompt, a JSON Schema, or both, and that the returned jobId should be polled with supadata_check_extract_status. It does not contrast this tool against alternatives like supadata_transcript for plain text or supadata_metadata, so routing among siblings is only partly covered.

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