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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: it returns a 'secure' browser page, implying an authenticated/HTTPS URL rather than performing the upload. It does not contradict annotations, and it clarifies that the tool is a retrieval operation, adding value beyond the structured hints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'Get' states the action, 'secure browser page' conveys the output type, 'for uploading videos' states the purpose, and 'to a project' specifies the target. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema (not shown). The description covers the core purpose and hints at the nature of the return value. It does not explicitly mention that the output is a URL to open in a browser, but the phrase 'browser page' implies that. Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, project_id, is fully described in the schema as 'Project to upload videos to.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a secure browser page for uploading videos to a project'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools (create/delete/list/search) which handle different actions. No confusion about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

The description implies when to use it (when you need to upload videos to a project) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. Since none of the siblings perform uploading, the context is fairly clear, but it does not explicitly say 'use this when you want to initiate an upload' or mention that it only provides a page, not the upload itself.

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