Reel25 — Video Analytics for TikTok, Instagram & YouTube

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a 'max 50' limit and that it is 'Free', but does not disclose side effects, permissions requirements, idempotency, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the action and object immediately. The parenthetical adds useful constraint info, though 'Free' is somewhat incidental and could be removed without loss.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and a limit, but lacks behavioral details such as what happens on error or whether existing folder memberships are affected. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions (folder_id as Folder UUID, account_ids as Account UUIDs). The description adds a potentially useful constraint ('max 50') that is not captured in the schema, giving it value beyond the baseline.

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 the specific action ('Add'), the object ('accounts'), and the destination ('folder'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'add_videos_to_folder'. The 'max 50' limit adds further specificity.

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 the use case (adding accounts to a folder) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_folder or remove_account. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a useful limit (max 50) and states 'Free,' but does not describe side effects, error behavior, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the folder does not exist or videos are already in the folder. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a key limit. However, the inclusion of 'Free' is vague and arguably filler, and the description could be better structured to separate the primary action from the limit and cost. Still, it is efficient and free of unnecessary words.

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 add-to-folder operation, the description provides the essential purpose and a limit, but it lacks details about return values, error handling, and behavioral nuances. The schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema or annotations to fill gaps. The tool is simple enough that this description is minimally viable, but it leaves out context that would help an agent handle edge cases.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (folder_id: 'Folder UUID', video_ids: 'Video UUIDs to add'), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying the operation's effect. No additional format or constraint details are provided, but the schema adequately covers the parameters.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Add videos to a folder.' It also includes a critical constraint (max 50) and cost indication (Free). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool add_accounts_to_folder, which operates on accounts rather than videos.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is obvious, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for different scenarios. For example, it does not clarify whether this tool should be used over creating a folder and then adding videos, or how it differs from bulk_track_videos.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It effectively discloses credit cost (5 credits) and polling behavior (15-30s), which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is asynchronous or if it returns results directly, but the provided details add meaningful context beyond what the schema offers.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, credit cost, and expected duration without waste. Front-loaded with the key action and context.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description covers purpose, cost, and duration. However, it doesn't explain what happens after analysis (whether results are returned directly or fetched via get_analysis), nor does it mention the force parameter or any preconditions like the video being tracked. This leaves moderate gaps for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (video_id and force), so the schema already documents them well. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs AI video analysis with focus areas (hooks, structure, CTA, UGC). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_analysis by implying this triggers the analysis rather than retrieving results, though it doesn't explicitly name the verb 'analyze' or contrast with specific siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_analysis or list_videos. The description implies using it to initiate analysis, but doesn't state prerequisites or that get_analysis should be used afterward to fetch results.

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

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 (the 25-video limit and that it is free), but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing tracking, or what happens on partial failures).

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value, including the 'Free' clarification.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and input. However, without an output schema, it does not specify what the tool returns on success/failure or handle edge cases like invalid/mixed URLs, which would be important for a bulk operation.

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 100% ('Array of video URLs (max 25)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the URL input and limit already covered by 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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Track'), resource ('videos'), scope ('up to 25 at once'), and input method ('by URL'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'track_video', which handles single videos.

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 clearly implies use for bulk tracking (multiple videos at once), setting it apart from the singular 'track_video'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Free' (likely cost-related) but does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, or side effects of folder creation. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely brief and to the point, containing only a few words. The 'Free.' addition is somewhat unnecessary but does not reduce clarity significantly. It is concise and front-loaded, though it borders on under-specification.

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 one-parameter creation tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about return values, behavior if a folder with the same name already exists, or any post-creation effects. Since there is no output schema, some expectation-setting would be helpful.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'name' parameter with a description and max length, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it neither improves nor detracts from what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a folder'), which is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_folders or add_videos_to_folder. However, it doesn't provide any additional context about folder types or special behaviors, so it's not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no use-case examples. The description simply restates the function without any contextual direction, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the tool is 'Free', but does not explain what that means (e.g., no credit cost), whether it is read-only, or what data is returned. Significant behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, but the 'Free.' sentence is ambiguous and may not earn its place. Still, it is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what analytics are returned but does not. It neither details the response shape nor provides enough context about the tool's behavior for the agent to confidently select it among many analytics-related siblings.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (folder_id described as 'Folder UUID'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the tool's purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get folder-level analytics' which clearly identifies the verb (Get), resource (folder-level analytics), and distinguishes it from account/video analytics siblings. It is specific and unambiguous, even if the exact analytics content is not detailed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Free' is the only extra context, but it does not explain conditions for use or exclusions. A tool with many sibling analytics functions should include direction on selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Apart from the ambiguous "Free" (which may imply no cost), the description does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, any permissions needed, or what response to expect. The verb "Get" implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. "Get account details" is essential, while "Free." is an extra but potentially useful hint. There is no redundancy or verbose language, which earns a high score for conciseness, even though it is minimal.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, but the description is notably sparse. It does not explain what "account details" includes, how the response is structured, or how it differs from related account tools. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (account_id as an account UUID), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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?

"Get account details" clearly states a specific verb and resource, indicating this tool retrieves information about a single account. It distinguishes from the many sibling tools through its name, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from similar tools like get_account_metrics or get_workspace, though the resource is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only adds 'Free' (likely indicating no credit cost) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) exist. The term 'detailed' is vague and does not clarify output or limitations.

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 extremely concise: two short phrases in one sentence. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the simple schema, the description lacks critical context. It does not specify what metrics are returned, whether results are paginated, or any constraints on usage. Given the presence of many analytics siblings, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent on when this tool is the right choice.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (account_id with description 'Account UUID'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies here because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 returns 'detailed account performance metrics' for an account, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling analytics tools like folder_analytics or growth_trends, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Free' hints at a cost-related distinction but is not framed as a directive. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Free' (likely a cost note) but fails to disclose pagination behavior, ordering, read-only nature, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 exceptionally concise, with two short sentences front-loading the purpose. 'Free' is a minor addition but does not waste words. Every sentence earns its place in terms of brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description to provide context. It fails to explain what 'videos' includes (e.g., metadata, pagination, ordering) or how it differs from sibling list tools. The description is too minimal to fully contextualize the tool's behavior in isolation.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, not even mentioning account_id or limit explicitly. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('videos for a specific account'), which distinguishes it from broader tools like list_videos. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a specific account' implies this tool should be used when targeting one account's videos, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like list_videos or get_video. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'Free' but does not disclose behavior such as what happens when no analysis exists, response format, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral transparency beyond the read-only nature implied by 'Get'.

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, one of which is a single word ('Free'). Extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler content.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but lacks detail about the return value or the nature of the AI analysis. Since there is no output schema, more context would help an agent understand what to expect from the response.

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 coverage is 100% (video_id with description 'Video UUID'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'existing AI analysis for a video'. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from sibling tool analyze_video, which likely creates new analysis.

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 usage for retrieving previously generated analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_video. No direct guidance on when-not-to-use or exclusion cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., a number, formatted string), whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. For a simple read, the agent can infer it is read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'Check workspace credit balance.' is the core. However, the second sentence 'Free.' is extraneous and does not contribute operational information, making it slightly wasteful.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not explicitly state the return value format, but that is implied by 'check balance.' The description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain. Schema coverage is 100% (empty).

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 a specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('workspace credit balance'). No other sibling tool appears to handle credits, so it is well-differentiated.

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 use case is implied: you want to know the current workspace credit balance. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use it vs alternatives (though none exist), and the word 'Free' is not a usage guideline. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Free.' as a cost hint and implies a read operation via 'Get', but it does not disclose error handling, return format, or any limitations. Given the lack of annotation support, this is insufficient transparency for a tool that could behave in unexpected ways.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and a key behavioral note ('Free'). It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core information needed to invoke it (need a previous radar search ID). However, it lacks context about what 'results' entails, how to find previous searches, or what the response structure looks like, leaving the agent partially in the dark.

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 schema already documents search_id as 'Search UUID', and the description adds the contextual note that the ID must refer to a previous radar search. This adds some semantic value beyond the schema, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID or what its format/constraints are, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get results') and its target resource ('a previous radar search'), which is specific and unambiguous. The inclusion of 'previous' distinguishes it from initiating a new search, and the tool name 'get_radar_results' further differentiates it from siblings like search_content or radar_history.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a previous radar search. The description does not mention radar_history for finding search IDs or search_content for initiating searches, so the agent lacks contextual decision support.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states the tool returns 'details including metrics and music info' and is 'Free', which adds some information, but does not mention permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus the word 'Free'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 having one parameter and no output schema, the description under-explains the return content ('details' is vague) and fails to differentiate itself from analytical tools like analyze_video. It lacks enough context for an agent to know exactly when and how to use it effectively.

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 100% (video_id is described as 'Video UUID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, but none is needed for a single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('video details'), and adds specific content ('metrics and music info'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account or list_videos. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that it retrieves a single video by ID, but the schema makes that evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_video or get_analysis. The word 'Free' hints at cost considerations but does not clarify use cases or exclusions. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'snapshots over time' and 'Free', but does not disclose auth requirements, exact metrics returned, pagination, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 appropriately concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the 'Free' note without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description should clarify what the 'snapshots' represent and the nature of the time series. It lacks detail on return values or data granularity, leaving gaps for an agent selecting the 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 100%, so both parameters (days and video_id) are already fully documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('video performance snapshots over time'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video or get_analysis. The phrase 'over time' conveys the historical nature of the data, aligning with the tool name 'get_video_history'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only added note is 'Free', which may hint at cost implications but does not clarify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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 only mentions 'Free,' which is ambiguous, and doesn't disclose return format, authentication needs, or any side effects. As a read-only get, it implies safety, but that is not stated.

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 a single, concise sentence with a colon-separated list of contents. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, earning full marks.

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 0-parameter tool, the description lists the main content areas (plan, credits, limits), which is adequate at a high level. However, without an output schema, it lacks detail on the exact structure of the returned data, and 'Free' is vague. It meets the minimum viable standard.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify.

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 retrieves workspace info, listing plan, credits, and limits. It uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_credits or get_account, which also deal with related concepts.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Free' hints at no cost but is vague and doesn't clarify contexts such as checking workspace-level limits versus per-account metrics.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, or any limitations. The 'Free' note is a pricing detail, not a behavioral trait.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. Every word contributes, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the growth trends look like or when to use this over other analytics tools. The current minimalism leaves gaps.

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 schema fully documents the single 'period' parameter with an enum and default value. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 retrieves follower and video growth trends, providing a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar analytics tools like get_account_metrics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra note is 'Free,' which is a cost attribute, not a usage context. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It clearly states a read/list operation and mentions 'Free' (no credits), but lacks details like response format or pagination. Adequate for a simple list.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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?

Simple tool with no schema/output schema; description covers core functionality but doesn't mention return values. Nearly complete for a trivial list 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain them; baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'all tracked creator accounts', distinguishing it from singular get_account and video-oriented tools like list_videos.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; 'Free' implies no cost but doesn't explicitly state conditions or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Free' (likely indicating cost), but omits any details about pagination, sorting, authentication, or return format. It does not contradict anything, but fails to provide substantive transparency.

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 highly concise, using only three words to convey the core action. It is immediately parseable without wasted words, though 'Free' is an extra fragment that does not harm clarity.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description adequately states the primary function. However, it lacks any contextual details such as output expectations, sorting, or usage notes, leaving gaps that the annotations would otherwise fill. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description is not burdened to explain parameters. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'folders', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_videos. The addition of 'Free' does not obscure the primary purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The statement is purely declarative without contextual advice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Free,' which hints at credit usage, but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. This is insufficient for a list tool.

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 concise at just two short sentences ('List all tracked videos. Free.'), with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only mentions the basic function. It does not describe the return format, sorting, ordering, or pagination details, which are important for a list operation. The 'Free' note is useful but does not compensate for the missing output context.

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 100%, so all five parameters (limit, offset, start_date, end_date, platform) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, but the schema provides adequate semantics, keeping this at baseline.

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 'List all tracked videos' clearly states the verb (list), resource (videos), and scope (all tracked), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video (single video) and search_content (search). The addition of 'Free' is extra but does not harm purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this lists all tracked videos without filtering by account or search, nor does it suggest using get_account_videos or search_content for specific contexts.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Free,' which hints at no cost, but does not state whether this is read-only, what data is returned, or any limits beyond the schema's default. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity means it omits helpful context, so it is not a perfect 5; it earns a 4 for being appropriately sized but not maximally informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains (e.g., fields, pagination). It only states 'List past radar searches' and 'Free,' leaving return behavior undocumented. For a tool with minimal other metadata, this is insufficient.

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 only parameter, 'limit,' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning and default. The description adds no extra semantic value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 'List past radar searches,' which has a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_radar_results and search_content by focusing on historical searches. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage is implied: an agent can infer to call this when listing past radar searches. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_radar_results for current results.' The 'Free' note adds cost context but not tool selection guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Free' but does not explain side effects such as whether tracking history is deleted, whether the action is reversible, or any permission requirements.

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 very concise, consisting of two short statements. 'Stop tracking an account' is essential, and 'Free' adds some value but is not crucial. No unnecessary length or repetition.

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 the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core action. However, it lacks information about the consequences of the operation, such as what happens to account data or whether the action is idempotent, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 input schema already documents account_id as 'Account UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action 'Stop tracking an account' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'untrack_video' by focusing on accounts, and contrasts with 'track_account'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states a 100-credit cost and internal polling latency of 30-60 seconds, which are critical operational traits. However, it does not mention return behavior, error conditions, or any side effects beyond cost/time.

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 short, front-loaded sentences, each providing distinct valuable information: what it does, cost, and polling behavior. There is zero wasted text.

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?

The description covers cost and latency, which is important for a paid, slow operation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., matching content list, metadata, ranking). Given the tool's complexity, this is a noticeable gap.

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%, and all parameters have useful descriptions and enums. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as 'AI-powered content discovery', which communicates a search/discovery operation. It is unique among siblings (no other search tool exists), though it lacks a strong explicit verb like 'search for' or 'find'.

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 gives operational constraints (100 credits, 30-60s polling) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The cost/time implications imply 'use sparingly', but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Free,' which is vague, and does not explain what 'top performing' means, any limitations, whether it is read-only, or what the response looks like.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the core function immediately. The 'Free.' note is brief but may inform cost behavior, making it acceptable though minimal.

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?

The tool has a single optional parameter and no output schema, but the description is still incomplete. It doesn't specify what is returned, how 'top performing' is determined, or any limitations, leaving the agent to guess.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, including a description for the 'limit' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gets top performing tracked videos, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list_videos by focusing on 'top performing,' though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Free' hints at cost implications but doesn't clarify usage context or prerequisites.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Free', which indicates no cost but does not convey that this is a state-changing operation or describe any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description fails to inform the agent about idempotency, reversibility, or what happens to existing tracked accounts.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the core action and the free nature. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool appears simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'tracking' entails, what the response will be, and any usage constraints. The current description leaves the agent with too many unknowns for a state-changing operation.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters with clear descriptions, covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'track' and the resource 'creator account', with the method 'by URL'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'track_video' and 'bulk_track_videos' by focusing on accounts as the target, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without contextualizing its place among related operations like 'untrack_video' or 'get_account'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether tracking is a mutation, whether it requires authentication, what happens on duplicate tracks, or the side effects. 'Supports TikTok, Instagram, YouTube' and 'Free' are helpful but do not explain behavioral outcomes.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Track a video by URL') and includes only essential additional details (platform support and cost). There is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, platform compatibility, and cost. However, it omits what the tracking action entails, any prerequisites, and the response format, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to understand the full context.

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 schema describes the url parameter as 'Full video URL (https)' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying supported platforms (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube), which clarifies which URLs are valid beyond a generic HTTPS URL.

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 verb 'Track' and resource 'a video by URL', and lists supported platforms (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube). This distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_track_videos, untrack_video, and track_account, which have different scopes.

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 usage for tracking a single video from supported platforms, and 'Free' indicates no credit cost. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like bulk_track_videos for multiple URLs, nor does it state exclusions for unsupported platforms.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and 'Free', but omits effects such as whether tracked history is preserved, whether it is reversible, or any permission requirements. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with just two short sentences. However, 'Free' may be ambiguous and does not clearly earn its place, so it is not a perfect score.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. Still, it lacks context about post-untracking behavior, which would improve completeness for a mutation-like operation.

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 schema describes video_id as 'Video UUID', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no further parameter information, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Stop tracking a video' clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from track_video and bulk_track_videos. The additional 'Free' is unnecessary but not misleading, so it still meets the threshold for a clear purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the inverse of track_video, nor does it describe any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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