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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, leaving substantial room for behavioral disclosure. The description adds valuable detail: the submission waits up to 240 seconds, and on timeout returns a job_id and a pointer to a next-step query action. This goes beyond what annotations convey and helps the agent understand the blocking, asynchronous nature of the call.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, then explains the waiting behavior and expected result. No wasted words or redundant clauses.

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 description covers the key invocation context: submission, a 240-second wait, and the fallback return of job_id with a next-step query action. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., that the post must contain a video), but the output schema likely documents return details, and the sibling query tool is available for polling. This is sufficient for a submit-style tool with an output schema.

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 the description merely restates what the schema already documents (accepts post link, short link, or share text). It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (submit a video speech-to-text task), the resource (Weibo post), and the input form (link, short link, or share text). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by_post_id tool through the URL-based input. The phrasing is specific and unambiguous.

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 when the agent has a post URL or share text, but it never explicitly contrasts this with the alternative weibo_submit_video_speech_text_by_post_id. The parameter schema adds an exclusion ('don't pass post_id'), but the description itself provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the obvious input type.

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