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.