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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: that it requires a completed and owned generation, that it presents media inline, and that it does not trigger generation or billing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. It packs the essential usage guidance into a compact format, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the single parameter, presence of safety annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call, prerequisites, and what the tool does. The only minor gap is parameter explanation, which is already penalized in parameter_semantics. Otherwise, the agent has enough information to decide when and how to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0% — the description gives no information about the jobId parameter. While the name 'jobId' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify that it should be the ID of the completed generation, nor its format or constraints. With zero coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics and fails to do so.

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 presents a completed owned MaxVideoAI generation inline as playable media. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by saying it is not for polling, generating, retrying, or charging credits, and directs the agent to get_generation_status or list_recent_generations first. This fully differentiates it from the listed siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (completed owned generation to show inline) and when-not-to-use (poll, generate, retry, charge credits). It also names the prerequisite calls (get_generation_status or list_recent_generations) and implies alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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