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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. It still adds real behavioral value by disclosing that FPS exports return a resolved sampling summary and that no video is regenerated, which tells the agent this is a cheap preflight that reuses an existing video rather than triggering work.

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 tightly packed sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense but slightly opaque ('resolved sampling summary') without prior context on what a quote returns.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered, and the quoted-versus-executed distinction is at least hinted at. Still missing for a nested-options tool: where it sits in the quote → export → poll lifecycle, whether the quote is free/consumes credits, and why idempotentHint is false for a read-only operation.

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?

The reported top-level coverage is 0% (a single `request` wrapper with no description), and the prose says nothing about parameters at all. In practice the nested $defs are richly documented (mode, fps vs frame_count exclusivity, output_formats defaults), so the schema carries the semantics, but the description adds nothing and never even signals that export settings are nested under `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?

States a specific verb and resource: quoting an export from an owned source video, which is distinguishable from the sibling export_animation (executing) and get_animation_export (retrieving). However, it never names those siblings, so the quote-vs-execute distinction must be inferred from the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus export_animation, get_animation_export, or quote_animation, and no explicit prerequisite such as 'call this before export_animation.' The phrase 'owned source video' hints at an ownership requirement but gives no actionable context or exclusion.

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