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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explicitly stating no media is created and that the target must be a user-controlled public page, reinforcing the safety and authorization expectations beyond the structured fields.

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, directly relevant sentence with no filler. The primary action, target, outcome, and non-destructive nature are all front-loaded and economically expressed.

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 description, combined with strong annotations and a fully documented schema, covers what the tool does and its key constraints. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not required here. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its import-related siblings.

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 both parameters are already well described in the input schema, so the description carries little additional parameter burden. It does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Scan a user-controlled public page') and outcome ('return an importable video URL found on it'), with a clear non-creation qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like media_import_inspect or media_import_url, but its page-scanning purpose is clear.

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 provides context that the page must be user-controlled and public, which implies an authorization condition, and 'without creating media' signals a non-destructive inspection use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the related media_import_inspect or media_import_url tools, nor does it describe when not to use it.

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