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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: legacy, deprecated and discontinued rows are filtered out by default and flagged by status when included, and each row carries a source URL and verification date. It stops short of describing pagination or result volume.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: what the data is and where it comes from, then how filtering/legacy works, then when to reach for it. Front-loaded with the payload and the provenance.

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 helpfully sketches the returned fields (price per second, source URL, check date, status) and covers the default-filtering behavior. Coverage is good but not exhaustive: the sort options and any result-size limits go unaddressed.

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 carry the load. It does explain include_legacy precisely and implies the host/model filters ('Filter by model family or host'), but the sort parameter and its 'cheapest' vs 'model' enum are never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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+resource: 'Vendor-stated AI video prices per second from AI Video Atlas's tracker', with the unit (per second) and provenance named. No sibling tool touches pricing, and the description makes the scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given: 'how much does X cost', 'cheapest model', 'before quoting any cost'. It also states the default exclusion of legacy rows and how to opt in. It lacks a when-not or an explicit pointer to a sibling, but the usage context is clear.

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