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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating it only quotes and does not start production. The description adds minimal context beyond that, such as clarifying it does not handle export or production, but does not disclose what happens after quoting (e.g., whether the quote is persisted or requires authentication). Given the annotations cover the read-only nature, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it more under-specified than efficiently concise.

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?

Given the complexity of the request object (with many optional fields like model, ratio, transparency, etc.) and the existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a quote entails, what the response contains, or how this tool relates to generate_video (e.g., that a quote must precede generation). The description leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly, despite the rich schema and annotations.

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 description provides no information about the 'request' parameter or its nested structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not mention any parameter details. While the schema itself has field descriptions, the tool description fails to guide the agent on how to construct a valid request, such as ensuring options match the later create call. This is a significant gap for a complex object parameter.

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 (quote) and resource (source-video generation), and explicitly excludes export and production, distinguishing it from related tools like generate_video and export_animation. However, it does not specify what a 'quote' returns (e.g., cost estimate or feasibility), leaving some ambiguity about the tool's output.

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 it is only for quoting video generation and explicitly states it does not start export or production, which hints at when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., generate_video for actual generation, quote_animation for animation) or provide explicit conditions for choosing this over siblings.

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