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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates a new job, begins processing, represents an entry point, and does not retrieve prior analyses. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not detail asynchronous behavior or potential external side effects.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary action, the second clarifies scope and exclusion, and the third explains the return value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (job ID / mediaId) and its role in tracking and retrieving results. The tool is simple (2 parameters) and the description covers the full workflow, including when not to use it, so the context is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying 'publicly accessible media URL' and giving examples of video platforms (YouTube, Rumble, Vimeo), which is a constraint not explicitly in the schema. This strengthens parameter understanding beyond the enum and URL description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Start a NEW Echosaw analysis job', clearly indicating the tool creates a job. It further distinguishes this from 'fetch previously analyzed media' and explicitly names echosaw_download_media as the alternative, making the purpose distinct among 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: it is an 'entry point' for new jobs, and it explicitly excludes fetching existing media by pointing to 'use echosaw_download_media for that'. It also explains what the caller receives (mediaId) and how it is used, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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