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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real constraints: video capped at 360 s, or 180 s when restoration='true', plus the presence of billing-policy data. It does not state whether the values are account-specific, cached, or require auth, but the core behavioral constraint an agent needs is present.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned data before the constraint detail in parentheses. Minor deductions for the awkward line break and reStructuredText backticks leaking into prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers what categories of data come back plus the key video limits. What's missing is whether the result is per-account/per-plan and how it relates to the pricing/billing siblings, which matters for a tool whose output overlaps three other tools.

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 the file_kind enum-like values are already documented. The description adds only indirect meaning by tying video to the 360 s/180 s limits, without explaining how image differs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Return') and a concrete payload (upload limits, target-object options, billing policy) scoped to image/video detect-then-blur anonymization. An agent can distinguish it from encrypt_image/encrypt_video, but it never names get_pricing_policy or get_billing_status as alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied: read constraints before submitting an encrypt job. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to the overlapping siblings (get_pricing_policy, get_billing_status) that also return billing information.

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