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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description earns credit for supplying cost ($0.99 per dance), the async execution model, and the required polling loop. It omits failure/refund behavior and what happens if generation stalls, which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then pricing, then the follow-up workflow. No filler, and the polling instruction is placed where an agent will read it before calling.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (generation_id) and how to resolve it via get_generation. It is nearly complete for a simple 3-param tool, though it leaves error/timeout handling and the dance-style options unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, and the description adds nothing about them. The 'dance' parameter in particular ('Pick a dance') has no enum, and the description does not compensate by listing valid styles.

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 concrete verb+resource: it turns a photo into a dance video, and the price line ('$0.99 per dance video') confirms the output is a video. That separates it cleanly from siblings like ai_talking_photo and ai_image_to_video without needing the schema.

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?

Gives the operational when/how: it runs asynchronously, returns a generation_id, and you must call get_generation until status is 'completed'. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over neighboring video tools such as ai_face_swap_video or ai_talking_photo.

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