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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds real value beyond them: 'Spends nothing' (no cost incurred), and it discloses the return payload (credits and a quoteId to show the account owner). It doesn't explain whether the quote reserves capacity or expires, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the cost outcome ('Spends nothing'), then parameters, then return shape. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter, zero-required quote tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost behavior, parameter consistency requirements, and the return fields (credits, quoteId). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters already document ranges, defaults, enums, and the 'same value for quote and make' rule. The description restates durationSec 15-60/default 15 and the format choices, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (quote/price) plus resource (a Motion video generated from a short brief and Brand Kit), and it explicitly ties to the sibling soclo_motion_video_make. An agent can distinguish it from soclo_motion_effects_quote and soclo_motion_video_make without opening any 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?

States the key workflow constraint ('use the same values for soclo_motion_video_make'), which routes the agent through the quote-then-make sequence. It does not name conditions for when NOT to quote or any prerequisite (e.g., Brand Kit must exist), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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