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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call costs nothing, that the original video is always kept, and what it returns (credits and a quoteId). Those details matter because readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false might otherwise suggest a mutating, chargeable operation; the description resolves that ambiguity well.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and price model. 'Spends nothing' is partly redundant with 'Free price', but the sentence length and ordering are otherwise tight and readable.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so (credits, quoteId), plus the cost and non-destructive guarantees. It is adequate for a one-parameter quote tool; the only gap is not linking the quoteId forward to the make tool.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents sourceAssetId fully. The description's 'video already in the Soclo Library, of any length' merely echoes the schema text, adding no format, ID-shape, or constraint detail.

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: it prices ('quotes') adding animated titles and brand effects to a video already in the Soclo Library, and clarifies it is a quote rather than the actual render. It stops short of naming the sibling that performs the work (soclo_motion_effects_make), so differentiation is implied by the word 'quote' rather than stated.

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 the workflow — get a price, then show the quoteId to the account owner — but never states when to call this instead of soclo_motion_effects_make, nor that the returned quoteId is the input to the make step. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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