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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the operation is clearly non-destructive. The description adds value by revealing that the URL is short-lived and only available for completed videos. This does not contradict 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?

A single, focused sentence communicates the core purpose and key constraint without wasted words. The most important information, short-lived URL and completed video requirement, is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, so the return value does not need explanation. Annotations cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description gives the essential behavioral constraint and target kind. It is slightly incomplete in not providing explicit routing against sibling tools, but for a simple 3-parameter operation this is a minor omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the kind parameter by associating it with preview versus clean video, but it does not explicitly explain animation_id or access_token. These parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the coverage gap is only partially addressed.

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 identifies the operation: generating a short-lived download URL, and specifies the resource (completed preview or clean video). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_scribe_animation by focusing on the URL generation rather than animation retrieval or management.

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 usage after an animation is completed and for either preview or clean video, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_scribe_animation, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions beyond completion.

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