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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: asynchronous job submission ('Returns a job id'), output specifications (1080p, audio normalized), and cost ('$0.60 per video in USDC on Solana') including the absence of account/API key requirements. This is sufficient for understanding side effects and prerequisites.

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 well-structured: a concise first paragraph covering purpose, workflow, and cost, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence carries useful information with no fluff, achieving high information density without being wordy.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, paid async job), the description is remarkably complete. It explains all inputs, the output (job id), the subsequent polling/fetching process, and the cost model, allowing an agent to confidently invoke and handle the result without missing context.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must and does explain every parameter. Each parameter is given a clear one-line explanation ('title: optional intro title shown for ~4s at the top', 'seed: stock-selection seed for reproducible visuals'), adding meaning well beyond the bare 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's job: 'Turn a script into a finished 1080p video' with specifics like subtitles and audio normalization. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the submission step and its direct outcome, making its role distinct from fetching or listing.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you need a publishable video and have only text', providing direct usage context. It also outlines the workflow ('Returns a job id; poll get_job, then fetch_video'), which tells the agent how to integrate with alternatives, effectively guiding tool selection and sequence.

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