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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: this is an async job rather than an inline result, and it costs 1 credit at 2k or 2 credits at 4k. It stops short of describing polling or completion behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and cost. 'POST /images/enhance' is developer-facing trivia that adds little for an agent, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return contract. Saying it is 'a job, like kling_omni_image' hints at async task semantics, but it never says a task_id is produced or that kling_get_task should be used to fetch the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description's notation of the credit cost per resolution adds a little meaning to the enum, but the email parameter (the non-obvious one, with account-selection semantics) is not addressed at all.

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: 'Improve and restore the detail of any image by URL' with explicit resolution targets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling kling_upscale_image, which is a near-neighbor an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Implied usage is clear (enhance an image given a public URL), and it gives cost and default-resolution guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs kling_upscale_image or kling_kolors_image, and no statement of prerequisites for why the URL must be fetchable beyond the schema text.

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