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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write) by disclosing token lifetime (30 min), that each call mints a new token while earlier ones stay valid, that it needs write access, that nothing is charged, and that bytes never transit the conversation. Also enumerates the return shape.

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?

Purpose and the headline return value are front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct operational information (expiry, re-call policy, alternatives). No filler despite the length.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explicitly lists the returned fields and the per-job file constraints, and names both the upstream and downstream siblings. Nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'kind' enum is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'one video OR up to ten photos per job' restates the schema's own limits rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns a 30-minute upload token and the helper command') and frames it as 'step one of an Odile Formats job', which distinguishes it from create_media_job and estimate_media_job. An agent can tell exactly what this call produces.

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?

Explicitly routes: price first with estimate_media_job, file limits via get_catalog, source keys flow into create_media_job. It even specifies when to re-call ('only when a token has expired or for a new job'), covering the when and the when-not.

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