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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous job semantics, credit charging on queueing, automatic refunds on failure, and where the result will appear. No contradiction with the annotations exists; the non-read-only, non-idempotent hints align with the described queueing behavior.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: output structure by media type, accepted inputs, async workflow, integration point, failure refund, sibling reference, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a comma-separated structure to avoid excessive verbosity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the job reference return, the polling mechanism via get_job_status, how results surface in get_post, and the credit/refund policy. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and poll the tool confidently.

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 schema already describes both parameters comprehensively (public post URL and internal post id) with 100% coverage. The description adds only minor context about post URL being public and post id being internal, which largely duplicates the schema.

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 clearly states the tool 'Queues a structured visual analysis for a post' and distinguishes the output types for video versus slideshow. It also explicitly identifies itself as the 'visual twin of request_transcript', which disambiguates it from a closely related sibling.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: returns a job reference to poll with get_job_status and attaches the completed analysis to get_post responses. It also mentions request_transcript as the analogous alternative, providing the agent with enough context to choose by modality.

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