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.