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

Delivers rich behavioral context beyond annotations: async nature with a returned dubbingId, the polling follow-up, and the 10-credit cost. This is exactly the operational detail annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint) 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then async behavior, cost, and enum codes in a compact span. Every clause carries information, though the trailing code list is somewhat dense.

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 2-param async tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: async pattern, follow-up tool, cost, and valid inputs. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description's enum listing of targetLang codes merely repeats structured data. 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 (dub) and resource (a COMPLETED project's video into another language), plus the provider (ElevenLabs). Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_dub_status and create_video.

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 constrains usage to COMPLETED projects and directs the agent to poll get_dub_status afterward, which is clear operational guidance. It does not name when not to use it versus alternatives, but the workflow routing is strong.

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