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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing duration (5–10 minutes), asynchronous link behavior with visible progress, that the finished video is downloadable and shareable, that 2 revisions are included, and a strict daily quota (rate limit). The annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so this added operational context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: capability and output variants come first, then duration/behavior, then the call trigger and return value. Every sentence carries information; it is slightly packed but not redundant.

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 a long-running generation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: expected duration, async progress URL, downloadable/shareable output, revision allowance, and quota limits. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including enum values for voice and a default for music, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description mentions subtitles/music generally but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema — 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+resource: a narrated promo video generated from a website, with explicit output variants (16:9 laptop, 9:16 mobile), subtitles and music. This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like create_device_preview or create_website_mockup, which produce static previews rather than narrated video.

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?

Provides only 'A felhasználó kérésére hívd' (call it at the user's request), which is a generic trigger that applies to nearly every sibling, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. The note that the result is a kodvena.hu link to hand to the user is useful context, but the selection guidance itself is thin.

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