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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations: it returns upload_page and video_url, instructs to present the link rather than a terminal command, requires waiting for user confirmation before calling score_my_video, and mentions an alternative PUT method for agents with machine access. Annotations only cover readOnly/destructive hints, so this additional context is 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?

The description is front-loaded with its purpose, but it is verbose and includes motivational asides ('this is the step where we lose them') that do not contribute to tool semantics. While well-structured, it could be more concise.

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?

The description is complete given no output schema: it explains both return values (upload_page and video_url), the subsequent call to score_my_video, edge cases like direct URLs and unsupported platforms, and provides a full workflow. This equips an agent to use the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter (filename) with a description ('their file's name, for the link'). The tool description does not add further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: generating an upload link for videos that are on the user's computer. It uses the specific verb 'use this when' and explains the output (upload_page and video_url). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like score_my_video by noting when to bypass this tool.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use ('when the user says their video is ON THEIR COMPUTER') and when-not-to-use instructions ('If they already have a direct video-file URL or a Dropbox or Google Drive share link, skip this'). It also names alternatives, such as passing directly to score_my_video, and specifies unsupported platforms (YouTube, Vimeo, etc.).

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