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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete return fields, which matters given there is no output schema, but it omits whether the link must be public, auth requirements, or error behavior for invalid links.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the returned fields are stated compactly. It is efficient though not structured into explicit use-case guidance.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup whose annotations cover the safety profile, listing the return fields compensates for the absent output schema. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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% and the single 'url' param is documented as 'The share link'. The description reinforces the expected format (cutluma.com/watch?v=…), adding modest value, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already carries the semantics.

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 resource ('Details of a video shared with a CutLuma link') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly distinguishes itself from project-media siblings (view_media, view_media_frame) by scoping to an external share link, though it never names an alternative.

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 share-link format example ('cutluma.com/watch?v=…') implies the input context, which is helpful guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling lookups.

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