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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of asynchronous behavior and the need to poll adds valuable context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose cost or rate limits, but it does mention the $0.10 per video cost, which is helpful. The async behavior is a key behavioral trait not captured in annotations.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides pricing, and the third explains the async workflow. Effective front-loading of critical usage information.

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 output schema is absent, the description explicitly mentions the return of a generation_id and the need to poll get_generation, which is essential for a complete async workflow. It covers the cost and basic workflow. It doesn't describe the output format of the final SRT, but that may be acceptable since it references a sibling tool for retrieval.

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% as all three parameters have descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the language and translate parameters indirectly. Since schema covers everything, baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Generate SRT subtitles' and clearly distinguishes from siblings like ai_speech_to_text and ai_audio_translator by focusing on subtitle generation. Could be more explicit about being a video-to-subtitle tool, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Implies usage by describing the async flow (returns a generation_id, poll get_generation), which tells the agent how to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like ai_speech_to_text or ai_audio_translator. The async workflow is a clear usage guideline, but exclusions are missing.

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