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.