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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world tool. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the video link is signed and valid for one hour, and waitSec waits for completion up to 45 seconds. It does not add much about auth or failure behavior, but the main traits are disclosed.

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?

Three compact sentences with no waste. The return contents are front-loaded, followed by the waitSec behavior and the practical use cases.

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?

The tool has annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, and the description still provides enough context to call it correctly. The main behaviors an agent needs, link freshness, waiting, and continuation after record_html, are all covered.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning for waitSec by explaining that it waits for a queued or running recording to finish and caps at 45 seconds. It also contextualizes the id indirectly through record_html continuation, though the schema already documents the id source.

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 and enumerates what is returned: status, report, and a fresh signed video link. It also distinguishes the continuation use case from record_html, so an agent can tell why this tool exists versus its 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?

Explicitly says to use it after record_html returns before the video is ready and to refresh an expired link. It also explains when waitSec applies, namely for queued or running recordings, which gives clear invocation guidance.

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