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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost model (one video minute per started minute), the required user confirmation, the failure mode when minutes are exhausted, and the auth requirement (connected account or API key). None of that is inferable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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, each doing distinct work: trigger, cost plus confirmation warning, auth/failure conditions. The most important constraint (minute spend) is placed early.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining agent-critical facts: cost, auth, and the unavailable-feature outcome. Nothing needed to invoke it safely 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?

The single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail for id, which is expected here; baseline 3.

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 ('makes the whole video') and scopes it to the post-preview stage, which separates it from create_video and get_video. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 a clear trigger condition ('After the free preview') and a prerequisite interaction rule ('confirm with them first'). It names no explicit alternative or exclusion, so usage is clear but not fully routed against the siblings.

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