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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that the tool 'processes in the browser' and 'uses more credits per run' than other workspaces, plus details on credit packs and Day Pass exclusions. This goes beyond basic conversion description.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the following five sentences about credits, workspaces, and pricing are lengthy and somewhat tangential to the core tool purpose. Though relevant, they could be condensed.

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 parameterless video conversion tool, the description adequately covers purpose and provides important cost/processing context. It does not detail output format or return value, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4; there is no parameter-level semantic burden for the description to fulfill.

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 function: 'Convert HDR video to SDR for universal playback.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the HDR-to-SDR transformation distinguishes it from generic video converters. The title and name are not restated tautologically.

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 phrase 'for universal playback' implies a usage context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like a general video converter. It provides credit/workspace constraints, which are relevant for invoking but not for tool selection.

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