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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail—'without using quota'—which is not in the annotations. It also clarifies the tool's read-only nature by saying it does not perform conversion. This goes beyond the baseline but does not describe potential error conditions or the exact format of the report.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and the key constraint (no conversion, no quota). It is concise with zero filler words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 does not explain how the parameters relate (e.g., whether content/content_base64 are alternatives to reading from filename, or if filename alone is sufficient). It also does not describe the structure of the 'report' beyond saying it indicates what CutConvert would produce, which is vague given there is no output schema. These gaps could leave an agent uncertain about invocation details.

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 all three parameters (content, filename, content_base64). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'detect' and the resource 'format of a subtitle/transcript/EDL/FCPXML file', and specifies it reports what CutConvert would produce. This distinguishes it from siblings like convert_file (which actually converts) and list_converters (which lists converters), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly notes 'without performing the conversion or using quota', which gives a clear condition for when to use this tool—when a preview of the output is needed without an actual conversion. However, it does not name alternative tools directly or state when NOT to use it, leaving the differentiation to inference from sibling names.

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