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

The "$0.10 per call" disclosure is genuinely useful added context: combined with idempotentHint=false it tells the agent that retries and re-calls cost real money. However, nothing describes output form, supported lengths, or failure handling. With annotations already covering the safety profile (non-destructive, closed-world), this earns a middle score rather than high marks.

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?

Three compact sentences with the capability stated first and pricing second; no filler. Slight deduction for the third sentence reading as a fragment that partly repeats the first rather than adding new 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?

For a paid, non-idempotent generation tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits how long the script will be, how `duration_seconds` affects it, what a 'brief' needs to contain, and what the returned structure looks like. "Scene beats" hints at the format but does not specify 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains what belongs in `brief`, nor what `duration_seconds` accepts — notably a string type with no format or examples, which is a real ambiguity. Only the name 'brief' carries any self-evident meaning, and the description's "short" is the sole, unquantified length signal.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Write a short video script") plus the output shape ("with scene beats"), which separates it from the many other fikra_generate_* siblings such as generate_ad_copy or generate_social_post. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for adjacent needs (e.g., social post vs. video script), so it stops 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 only contextual hint is the trailing phrase "for a product or explainer video," which characterizes the domain but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the ~20 other generate_* tools. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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