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

Even with minimal annotations, the description discloses the tool's behavior: it returns an upload_page link with a file picker plus a video_url for scoring. It explains the user interaction ('GIVE THEM upload_page AS A LINK TO OPEN'), the required wait for confirmation, and the alternative PUT flow for command-capable agents. This goes well beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 longer than a typical tool description, but it is front-loaded with the core usage trigger and each sentence conveys necessary operational instructions. It could be tightened, but the additional length is justified by the multi-step workflow it must communicate.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully compensates by explaining both return values (upload_page and video_url), the required follow-up call to score_my_video, and alternative handling for different agent capabilities. It provides a complete self-contained workflow for the agent.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (filename) with the description 'their file's name, for the link'. The tool description itself adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline of 3 where the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 this tool creates an upload link for videos located on the user's computer ('Use this when the user says their video is ON THEIR COMPUTER'). It explicitly names the returned artifacts (upload_page and video_url) and differs from sibling tools by saying to skip this when a URL already exists and pass directly to score_my_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?

Usage guidance is exceptionally explicit: it gives the exact trigger ('when the user says their video is ON THEIR COMPUTER'), exclusions ('If they already have a direct video-file URL or a Dropbox or Google Drive share link, skip this'), and forbidden sources ('Do not pass YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion or Twitch'). It also tells the agent exactly what to do after getting the video_url.

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