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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the returned limits are specific to this integration and by enumerating the limit types returned, which orients the agent about what the call exposes.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler: the verb is front-loaded, the four limit dimensions are listed compactly, and the integration scope closes the sentence. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only query with rich annotations and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Return-value shape is documented by the output schema, so the description does not need to repeat 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to explain about arguments; it correctly focuses on the returned limit values instead.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource (temporary video upload limits), then enumerates the exact dimensions covered: size, quota, file-type, and expiration. Scoping it to 'this VideosTemporales agent integration' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling upload_temporary_video without needing to compare schemas.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this before uploading' statement, but with a single sibling named upload_temporary_video, the selection context is unambiguous: one queries limits, the other performs the upload. The context is clear enough that an agent would not mistake which tool to invoke.

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