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

Goes well beyond the annotations by declaring the cost profile ("spends nothing", "sends no Make", never calls a funded planner), the returned figures (total and estimated balance after), and the semantic of each result (one finished Soclo render, never joined agent-local clips). It also names the authoritative sources (wallet/ledger, soclo_video_make) and requires persisting returned IDs — details no annotation conveys.

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 text is a run-on mixing purpose, upstream workflow, cost behavior, approval semantics, recovery branches, and state-persistence advice across very long sentences. For a single-parameter tool it is oversized and not structured, so the agent must parse a paragraph to find the actionable core.

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 still covers what comes back (total, estimated balance, IDs to persist) and adds the safety and recovery context. Remaining gaps are minor field-level semantics rather than missing call-critical information.

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 high, so the nested variant fields (label, hook, projectId, revision, clientRequestId, makeReady, expectedCredits) carry their own documentation burden. The description adds some meaning — distinct hooks, quoting saved revisions, transport paging — but never explains the purpose of makeReady, expectedCredits, or quoteId in the request.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ("Quote existing host-authored video variants for review") and later distinguishes this from soclo_video_variants_approve and soclo_video_variants_status. The core purpose is clear, though it is quickly buried under dense workflow prescription.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (soclo_host_plan_prepare, read guides, import_selected), the follow-up tool per variant (soclo_video_variants_approve), and the UNKNOWN-outcome branch (read soclo_video_variants_status first). When-to-use and what-to-do-next are both spelled out rather than implied.

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