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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It openly details that estimates are sorted cheapest-first, include provenance and freshness, normalize credit-economy providers to USD, and assume stitched generations for clip-length limits. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences: purpose and providers, output characteristics, and special handling. Every sentence adds substantive value with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates on behavior.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return envelope: estimates sorted, with source_url, verified_at, and confidence level. It also covers normalization and stitching behavior. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it does mention clip-length limits indirectly, which relates to duration_seconds. The schema already handles parameter semantics, so no compensation is needed.

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: estimating USD cost of generating AI video across multiple named providers. It specifies the output format (sorted cheapest-first with provenance, freshness, and confidence), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_providers and get_pricing_changes.

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 implies this tool is for cost estimation but does not explicitly state when to use it vs compare_providers or get_pricing_changes. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative scenarios, so usage guidance is only implied through the tool's listed features.

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