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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotent=false, which alone would leave the agent unsure whether calling this costs money or creates artifacts. The description resolves that by asserting 'Nothing is charged' and 'a quote alone creates nothing', plus the instruction to surface the price to the user before proceeding. It does not mention quote expiry or how long a quoted price is honored, which is why it stops short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then the no-charge guarantee, then the hand-off to create_video — the important facts come first. It is dense with colon-separated clauses and runs slightly long, but each sentence carries actionable content.

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 10-parameter, output-schema-bearing quoting tool, the description covers the essential agent-relevant facts: no charge, price must be shown to the user, and the quote_id/credits must be passed to create_video. Return-value structure is correctly left to the output schema; only quote lifetime is unaddressed.

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 each of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema with defaults and model capability pointers. The description adds only a light gloss on reference_images ('keep the exact product/person: give the product photo here'), which largely restates the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('gets its exact price in Deepnia credits') and scopes it to short video before creation happens. It is immediately distinguishable from create_video (which makes the video) and from quote_image/quote_voiceover siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants Deepnia to make a short video'), states the follow-up path ('once they accept, call create_video with the quote_id and credits it returns'), and warns that a quote alone creates nothing. Both when-to-use and the alternative are named.

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