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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing exactly what the download links contain (including burned-in subtitles and music track) and the conditional line about picture checks. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 a single packed sentence starting with 'Step 5' and includes all necessary details without redundancy. It is slightly dense and could be split for readability, but every clause serves a purpose.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the result contains (MP4, thumbnail, .srt file, optional check line) and the condition for the check line. It doesn't cover error cases for unfinished jobs, but the 'finished video' qualifier hints at the precondition.

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 input schema already fully describes job_id as 'The video number returned by kleo_create_video' with 100% coverage. The description adds only that the video must be finished, which is contextual rather than new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves download links for a finished video and enumerates the deliverables (MP4, thumbnail, subtitles). The 'Step 5' prefix positions it within a workflow, distinguishing it from siblings like kleo_get_job (status) or kleo_wait_for_video (waiting).

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 condition 'for a finished video' and 'Step 5' imply the appropriate time to call, and the list of returned files helps an agent understand what to expect. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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