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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: it is the tool equivalent of the `guidance://getting-started` resource and exists for clients that cannot read resources directly, plus an overview of what content is returned.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the content scope, then the invocation triggers and the resource-equivalence note. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool with annotations and an output schema, this is complete: it says what the guidance covers, when to fetch it, and why it exists in tool form. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface to explain; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 names a specific resource (getting-started guidance) and enumerates its content: authentication, verifying with get_me, VideoGen intro, workflows-vs-media-tools selection, and ID conventions. It is clearly not a data-mutation or generation tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling guidance tools (get_workflows_guidance, get_tools_vs_workflows_guidance, get_async_tasks_guidance), whose scopes it partly overlaps.

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 call triggers: connecting, onboarding, user asking what VideoGen can do, or setting up the API/MCP. This is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g., 'use get_workflows_guidance instead when you only need workflow details').

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