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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: asynchronous nature, idempotency key usage, point reservation/deduction policy, and result_url validity (7 days). However, it doesn't detail error handling or exact response structure, but given the annotations already convey the idempotent and non-read-only nature, the description adds enough to be a 3.

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?

The description is moderately concise but contains redundant bilingual content: it repeats the full description in both English and Korean. The Korean portion repeats the same information, making it longer than necessary. The front-loading is decent, but the bilingual repetition reduces conciseness and structure efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (24 parameters, multiple inter-dependent enums) and lack of output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview but relies heavily on external developer guides for critical details (version-specific prices, allowed combinations). It doesn't mention response format or error handling, but for an async job submission, it covers the essential flow. It's a solid 3, not a 4, because the version-dependent rules are not summarized.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema: it explains pricing (points per second), modes (text/image/reference), and explicitly points to version-specific tables for details. It also clarifies audio behavior and that version/tier default values depend on each other, which is not fully in the schema.

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 clearly states it submits an asynchronous Kling video generation job with specific modes (text/image/reference) and mentions the version/tier selection. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like seedance_jobs_create and veo_jobs_create by naming the model, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from other job creation tools, though the model name is a strong differentiator.

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 provides clear usage guidance: it explicitly tells the agent to use kling_jobs_status to check status and download via result_url, and mentions the billing/reservation policy. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling, but the model-specific isolation and typical async generation workflow make the context clear.

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