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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying it returns available import metadata and explicitly does not create media, though it does not cover auth requirements or rate limits.

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, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying what is inspected, what sources are supported, and what side effect is avoided.

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 tool has one required parameter, full schema coverage, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema. The description provides enough context to call it correctly without needing to explain return values, and the non-creation behavior is stated explicitly.

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 schema already explains that the url parameter accepts public social video links and Google Drive file links. The description restates this without adding new syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Inspect'), a precise resource ('user-provided public social-video or Google Drive URL'), and the key scope constraint ('without creating media'). This distinguishes it from the sibling import tool that likely performs creation, so an agent can tell what it does at a glance.

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 phrase 'without creating media' clearly signals when-not to expect side effects and implicitly contrasts with import tools that do create media. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool like media_import_url or state a situation such as 'use this to preview before importing,' so routing is left slightly to inference.

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