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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: analysis targets the actual export artifact 'when possible' (implying a fallback), the result is cached on the export doc, and the return includes findings plus report-generation instructions. It omits what happens if no completed export exists, cost/latency, and permission requirements.

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 core action, and each sentence adds distinct information (what is analyzed/cached, what is returned). No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return ('findings plus instructions for generating the compliance report') and caching semantics. It is still incomplete on preconditions (no completed export, in-flight exports), failure behavior, and its relationship to generate_ip_report.

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%, so editId, exportId, workspaceId, and forceRefresh are already fully documented, including the default-to-latest-export behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pair: 'Run IP and copyright analysis on the completed exported video.' An agent can distinguish this from generic analysis or generation tools. It does not name the obvious sibling generate_ip_report, so differentiation is only implied via 'instructions for generating the compliance report.'

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 phrase 'on the completed exported video' implies a precondition (the export must exist and be finished), and the schema notes a default of the latest completed export. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus generate_ip_report or when-not guidance, so routing between the two compliance-related tools is left to inference.

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