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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'without creating media.' It also adds the authorization context (user-controlled public page) that maps to the confirmAuthorizedToScan gate, though it says nothing about failure modes or redirect/rate-limit behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and packs scope, output, and side-effect posture with zero filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only scan with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, the constraint (public page), and the result (importable URL) well. It is slightly thin on what happens when no video is found, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning ('user-controlled public page' gestures at confirmAuthorizedToScan) and no syntax or format details beyond what the schema supplies, so baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb (scan), resource (user-controlled public page), scope (public page), and output (importable video URL), and explicitly contrasts with media creation. An agent can distinguish this from media_import_url and media_import_inspect without opening any schema.

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' establishes the non-mutating pre-import context, hinting this is the reconnaissance step before media_import_url. However, it never names the alternative tools or gives explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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