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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the state constraint (failed assets) and the action of re-queuing, which is useful. It doesn't disclose potential error behaviors or side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the action and the key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a clear precondition (failed state). It adequately covers what an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it, though it could mention what happens if the asset isn't in a failed state.

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 schema provides no description for asset_id (0% coverage), but the description mentions 'a video' and 'assets,' which helps infer that asset_id identifies the video to retry. This is minimal but sufficient for a single obvious 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 uses a specific verb 'Re-queue' and identifies the resource as 'a video whose transcode failed.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_transcode_status or delete_asset by focusing on retrying failed transcodes.

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?

It states clearly that the tool 'Only works on assets in a failed state,' which sets a precondition for use. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the constraint implies when to use it and when not to.

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