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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: two formats are verified and returned links expire after 1 hour, which matters for an agent that may cache a URL. However it omits the key behavioral states (what is returned while rendering is pending or on failure) and there is mild tension between 'check ... return links' and readOnlyHint=false, which is never explained.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the most important fact (link expiry) is included rather than buried. It is efficient but slightly under-specified in the same breath, so not maximally tight.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place the return shape could be described, and it covers only the success case (links) without pending/error states or the two-format structure. For a single-parameter, open-world polling tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (adaptation_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it only implies the ID refers to an adaptation and gives no format, origin (e.g. from list_adaptations), or behavior for invalid IDs. That is just enough to be workable but not compensatory.

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 a specific verb+resource: checking both video formats for an adaptation and returning download links. That clearly separates it from generate_adaptations and make_videos, though the phrase 'both video formats' is never defined, so the agent knows what is checked but not what the two formats are.

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?

'Once finished' implies this is a polling call to be used after generation, but the tool never says so explicitly, never names make_videos or generate_adaptations as the prerequisite, and gives no guidance on how often to poll or what to do while the adaptation is still processing.

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