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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses that this is a read operation ('Read'), what data is returned, and that compact:true is a 'cheap' check that skips the catalog and brain. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only tool it provides solid behavioral context.

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 what the tool reads and follows with usage guidance. It is a bit dense but every sentence contributes useful information; it could be slightly more scannable, but it is appropriately sized.

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 that there is no output schema and only two parameters, the description is complete enough: it enumerates the main return values and explains the compact mode. It does not describe the response format or error cases, but those are minor gaps for a read tool.

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 50%: project_id is fully documented in the schema, but compact has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that compact:true skips the catalog and brain for a cheap balance/spend/current-model check, adding meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current generation settings') and enumerates the returned data (model, aspect ratio, quality, duration, resolution, sound, voice, speed, cost, balance, spend, brain view). It clearly distinguishes itself from set_settings (write) and from more specialized siblings like get_pricelist or get_emero_brain by being a combined read.

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 gives explicit usage: 'Call it before each image or video' and 'show the user the model and cost first.' It also explains when to use the compact flag. It does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives, but the primary context is clear.

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