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

Transparency is excellent beyond the annotations: it details async behavior (~1–3 min), untracked URL handling, automatic refunds on failure, credits cost per call, and the fact that it auto-generates transcripts/analysis for videos—description adds value beyond the raw annotation hints, with no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false. The behavior disclosure is comprehensive (e.g., cleanup, failure cleanup, timing) and includes useful caveats like 'few minutes longer for untracked URLs.'

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 information-dense sentences that follow a logical progression: what it does, async/error handling, and special case handling (videos) plus credits cost. No fluff, every clause earns its place.

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?

For an async job-based tool with no output schema, it covers the essential workflow: what to expect asynchronously, how to poll, cost and refunds, and the handling of untracked URLs. Missing a short note on exact result structure beyond the 'remix' field, but the description justifies its choices well for the given complexity.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the 'url' parameter in depth (no need to track, untracked URLs fetched automatically) and describing the result or output expectations, going beyond what the schema's terse descriptions or examples provide. It could go further by addressing constraints or relationships between parameters.

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?

The description is specific about verb+resources: takes a post (URL or id) plus a niche and produces an adapted content idea with a detailed output breakdown. Clarifying language ('adapted content idea: rewritten title and description, segment-by-segment script...') distinguishes it from siblings like get_post or crawl_profile.

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?

Clear guidance is provided: no crawl_profile round-trip is needed, untracked URLs are fetched automatically, and users should poll get_remix_result until the 'remix' field populates. However, it lacks explicit 'use X instead' alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, despite the sibling list offering related capabilities.

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