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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces 'without creating media' and adds the input constraint that the URL must be public, but it does not go beyond annotations to disclose failure modes, rights-confirmation effects, or provider-specific behavior. This is adequate but not especially 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the source ('user-provided public'), the supported link types ('social-video or Google Drive URL'), the behavior ('return available import metadata'), and the key non-effect ('without creating media').

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 strong annotations, a 100%-covered input schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the core task well and reinforces the critical read-only distinction. It could be more complete by explicitly separating itself from media_import_scan_page or explaining what confirmRightsToMedia actually changes in the response, but those are minor gaps given the surrounding structured context.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'url' and 'confirmRightsToMedia'. The description mostly restates the schema's URL domain (public, social video or Google Drive) and adds no new meaning about URL formats, required confirmation semantics, or edge cases. It does not elevate above the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('a user-provided public social-video or Google Drive URL') and a clear outcome ('return available import metadata'). The phrase 'without creating media' distinguishes it from import-oriented siblings like media_import_url, making the tool's role as a read-only preflight step evident.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a user provides a public URL and you need import metadata without creating media. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the use case is unambiguous.

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