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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it is explicitly free ("Free; never prepares, films or charges") and names the required scope "plan:create," which is exactly the kind of cost/auth context annotations 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the cost/auth constraints. No filler and no repetition of the annotations.

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 3-param read tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient: it delimits what is returned ("the original preparation identity only") and warns the agent it will not trigger any filming or billing. The residual gap is that an agent still cannot tell what a "status" result actually contains versus soclo_video_status.

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%, so the schema baseline is 3; the description lifts it by stating the provenance of all three values — they must be the projectId, revision and clientRequestId from a prior soclo_video_prepare call, which is meaning beyond "the original saved revision" 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reads the original preparation identity") and ties the inputs back to "an earlier soclo_video_prepare call," which lets an agent distinguish this from soclo_video_prepare itself. However, the "identity only" phrasing sits awkwardly against the name/title's "status," and no explicit contrast is drawn with soclo_video_status, soclo_video_poll or soclo_video_recover.

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?

"of an earlier soclo_video_prepare call" implies the precondition (call it after a prepare), and "Needs plan:create" flags the entitlement. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the very similarly named soclo_video_status/poll siblings, so the selection logic is left to inference.

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