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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds scoping behavior ('acts only on the explicit project_id') and discloses that the result includes the project identity. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the critical scoping constraint ('PROJECT-SCOPED') and then the return summary. Every clause earns its place with no 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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states scope, return content, and usage condition. It doesn't detail the exact output structure, but there is no output schema, and the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the project_id parameter is already well-documented in the schema (immutable scope, copy from list_projects/open_project/project_state, never guessed). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 ('get'), a resource ('video info'), and enumerates exactly what is returned ('Video metadata plus index and EDL summary'), and adds the project-scoping constraint and project identity return. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_* tools by the explicit scope and return content.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use only when the supplied project state does not already answer the metadata question.' It implies a when-not (when project_state already answers) but does not name specific alternative tools. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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