GrowingUpVideo

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns product, pricing, and privacy information rather than producing a video or photo.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The product definition is front-loaded, and the call triggers are compactly listed in one sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with strong safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to invoke it. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is effectively complete, so the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies. The description still adds value by indicating the content areas covered (what it is, how it works, prices, privacy).

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 the tool's job with a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('GrowingUpVideo'), plus a one-line definition of what the product does. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools as informational rather than creation or advice.

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?

Explicitly lists call triggers: 'when the user asks what they can do with old photos... or asks about price.' It gives clear conditions but does not name the sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to call it, missing the top tier.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond saying it provides advice, which aligns with the read-only nature but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format or length.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and scope, and the second gives a clear usage instruction. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations. The description explains what the advice covers and when to call it, which is largely complete for an agent to decide and invoke it correctly. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the nature or format of the advice, but it is sufficient for this context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the content of the advice (count, ages, framing, quality), which is useful semantic information even though it does not map to parameters.

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 ('advice') and a clear resource ('which photos to pick for a growing-up video'), with the scope enumerated as count, ages, framing, and quality. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_offer and start_video, which involve different actions.

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 explicitly instructs to call the tool 'before the user starts choosing photos,' providing a clear timing context. While it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, the timing guidance is sufficient for a simple advice tool.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them by describing the tool as returning a link rather than performing an action. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the user, not the agent, performs sign-in, photo upload, cropping, and payment. The explicit warning never to pay or enter card details is valuable safety-relevant disclosure.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the trigger is in the second, and the third adds essential user-flow and safety details. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (a link), when to call it, and what to communicate to the user. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the exact return format of the link or any error/edge-case behavior, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is effectively complete with an empty input schema. The description correctly provides all the information an agent needs to invoke the tool without parameters.

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 action and resource: 'Get the link where the user makes their video.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools by emphasizing that this is about obtaining a link for video creation, not about offers or tips. The second sentence reinforces the intended use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call it once the user wants to make one.' It also gives behavioral guidance about what not to do ('Never pay or enter card details for them'), which helps the agent avoid harmful actions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the trigger condition is clear enough.

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