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

Far exceeds the annotations (which only say readOnly false, idempotent false): it discloses caching behavior, quota consumption (10/day), the confirm gate, what the analysis contains, that manual classifications are respected, that images/carousels are unsupported, that metrics are not synced, and that saved=false means persistence failure. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and inputs, then the behavioral caveats. Dense but each sentence carries information (quota, evidence caveat, unsupported media, persistence flag). Slightly list-like but 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?

With no output schema and only safety annotations, the description covers return contents, caching/persistence semantics, quota cost, and media limitations. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret a call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains platformVideoId (from list_videos), platform (disambiguation), and confirm (required, quota-consuming), covering 3 of 4 params. brandId is left unexplained, which is the only gap.

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 ('Analyze one of the brand's own published video posts') and explicitly scopes it to the brand's own videos, which distinguishes it from analyze_catalog_video. It also names the sibling source tool list_videos, so an agent can identify it without opening a 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 context: pull platformVideoId from list_videos, pass platform to disambiguate, and confirm=true is required for uncached runs. It implies but never explicitly names the alternative (analyze_catalog_video) or states the condition separating the two, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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