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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by explicitly saying 'it sends nothing and collects no personal data' — a privacy/side-effect guarantee annotations cannot express. It also previews the post-click flow (footage questions, price on screen, upload), which sets expectations the agent can relay to the user.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the usage trigger. The 'questions about the footage, a price on screen, then upload' clause is slightly verbose but earns its place by letting the agent set user expectations.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned (a link), that it is side-effect free, and the downstream experience. Little an agent needs for correct invocation 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?

With one optional parameter at 100% schema coverage and a fully enumerated service list, the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that the service preselects the quote, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a concrete verb and output: it 'Returns a link to the Mark Studios instant quote... preselected for the chosen service.' That distinguishes it from discovery siblings like find_video_editing_service, though the differentiation is implied rather than stated by name.

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?

'Use when the user says they want to hire an editor or get a quote' gives an explicit triggering condition. It stops short of naming a when-not case or pointing to the sibling that should be used first (the enum hint about find_video_editing_service lives in the schema, not the description).

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