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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit for what it adds: download URLs are signed, expire in one hour, are returned only for rendered versions, and must not be stored or shared. That is real operational context beyond the structured 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the returned fields and ends on the actionable warnings. The nested 'and, for rendered versions, ...' clause is slightly tangled but no words are wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the returned payload, the conditional nature of download URLs, and the expiry/security constraint. Nothing essential for a correct call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters. video_id is self-evident from context, and the render-conditional mention of download URLs hints at include_download_urls, but it never names the flag or explains that it defaults to true and can suppress URLs.

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?

States the resource precisely ('One video') and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, settings, visibility, public page, versions, and download URLs. That clearly separates it from list_videos and the project/storyboard siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note about one-hour signed URLs and 'download right away' signals the download use case, but the description never says when to choose this over list_videos or how it relates to edit_video/get_project. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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