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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety bar is low, and the description still adds real context: entries are built from the library only, cost nothing, and are complete specs meant to be copied. The 'takes no title_id' note usefully signals the list is not title-scoped — something no annotation conveys.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short clause — front-loaded with the resource name and immediately followed by the nature of each item. Slightly cramped phrasing ('one or more per format', em-dash aside) but no wasted sentences.

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 carries return-value burden and does describe the payload as complete VideoSpec examples, one per format. It stops short of saying how many are returned or how the format grouping is keyed, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by clarifying that no title_id is accepted, which prevents an agent from trying to scope the call by title.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('ready videos of the video studio', each a complete VideoSpec) and explains the shape of the result (one or more per format). It is clearly distinguishable from generation tools, though it never names the adjacent format-listing sibling, so differentiation is inferred 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?

'a working example to copy and change' implies a copy-then-modify workflow, and 'no AI, free' hints at the zero-cost alternative to generate_video/plan_video, but no tool is named and there are no explicit when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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