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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it reveals this is not an immediate tool creation but a demand-driven build pipeline, that building is gated on paying demand, and that supplying contact_email triggers a price confirmation before work starts plus a notification when live. It does not describe the immediate response payload, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the required inputs, then the follow-up process. Every sentence carries information; the only slightly promotional clause is 'We build tools that have paying demand', which nonetheless explains why the price fields matter.

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 five-parameter, annotation-free submission tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, required inputs, the demand-gating rationale, and what happens after submission. It leaves the immediate return value somewhat implicit ('tell you when it is live'), but an agent has enough to call it correctly and set expectations.

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 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters, and it effectively does: what the tool should do (tool_description), an example input, price per use, frequency of use, and the conditional effect of contact_email. It adds real meaning beyond field names, though it does not specify a format for example_input or state units/currency constraints beyond 'what you would pay per use'.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Ask for') and resource ('a hosted tool that does not exist here yet'), and the parenthetical ('anything from email to video/audio/document work') makes clear this is a request channel rather than one of the concrete video siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is the fallback for capabilities not otherwise available.

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 phrase 'that does not exist here yet' functions as an implicit when-not condition: don't use this if a sibling already does the job. It also tells the agent exactly what to include in the request. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating an explicit exclusion, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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