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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds that the tool runs checks via an 'interactive view' and shows results, and notes the report parameter is internal. This is useful but not rich; it doesn't detail the exact check steps or output format, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 the purpose and usage, but includes a full bilingual repetition (English and Arabic) that adds length without new information. Still, it's concise and well-structured, with the Args section clearly separated.

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?

For a simple diagnostic tool with no required parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, and the only parameter. It doesn't discuss prerequisites or limitations, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 'report' parameter is internal, filled by the interactive view, and instructs the agent to leave it empty. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare title and default.

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 action ('Check whether this AI app can play Al Jazeera 360 videos inside the chat') and includes key details like DRM, official player embedding, and fullscreen. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like play_video by framing itself as a diagnostic check rather than a playback action.

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 the user says a video does not play in the chat' and instructs to call it with no arguments, noting the interactive view runs checks. This provides clear contextual guidance without ambiguity, even if alternatives aren't named.

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