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

With no annotations, the description carries real load and does: it discloses the 3-credit cost and that it 'runs as a job' (async execution), plus what the output contains. It omits authentication expectations and, crucially, how a caller retrieves job results (get_job), so it stops short of full 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?

Short overall, but the leading sentence is convoluted ('your pasted script read like a Video Review on estimated times') and buries the cost and async traits mid-string. The 'Same as POST /v1/scripts/review' tail is useful compactly.

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 need not be described, and cost/async are covered. However, for a job-based tool with four parameters at 25% schema coverage and null-defaulted fields, the description should tell the agent the script is the core input and how to follow up on the job; that gap is material.

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 only 25% — only idempotency_key is documented in the schema, and that documentation is thorough. The description adds nothing about the other three parameters: title, script (presumably required in practice despite all being nullable), and api_key. It gestures at 'pasted script' but does not clarify requiredness or formats.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (review a script) and describes the output dimensions: estimated times, machine-sounding lines, and a fact-check list. The phrasing 'read like a Video Review' is awkward and the differentiation from sibling reviewers (review_video, review_short, review_hook) is only implied by 'pasted script' rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling review_* tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a script should exist first, or that write_script precedes this). Only the credential-cost and API-equivalence line are given, which is not usage guidance.

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