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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by detailing the composition of the response (MP4, thumbnail, subtitles, and their contents), which helps the agent anticipate what it receives.

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, tightly structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Step 5. Download links') and packs all necessary details without redundancy. Every phrase contributes to clarity, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 is fully sufficient. It explains when to use it (finished video), what it returns (all link types and their contents), and relies on annotations for safety. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter job_id, and the description repeats the same context ('the video number returned by kleo_create_video') without adding new semantics. Per calibration, the baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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's purpose: retrieving download links for a finished video (film or animatic). It specifies the exact artifacts (MP4, thumbnail, .srt) and explains that burned-in subtitles and music are inside the MP4 when requested. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 description opens with 'Step 5.' and explicitly says 'for a finished video', making it unambiguous that this tool is used after video creation and completion. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the step context and condition clearly route the agent to this tool at the right time.

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