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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: it tells the agent which fields matter and instructs it to hand the URL to the user for local processing, which is an actionable behavioral directive rather than a restatement.

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 short sentences with no waste: the first front-loads what the tool retrieves, the second states the required follow-up action. Nothing is redundant.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and the privacy directive is a useful addition. The critical gap is provenance of the required id and the relationship to search_tools, without which an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool in a 19-tool family.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it, yet it never says what kind of id this is or where to get one (search_tools, list_video_styles, etc.). It describes return fields instead, leaving the only input essentially undefined.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a tool's description, accepted files, limitations and its URL') and enumerates exactly what comes back, so an agent knows precisely what this call yields. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling discovery tool search_tools, which an agent would need in order to obtain the required id.

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?

Usage is implied by the content list, and there is one clear post-call directive: surface the URL to the user for private on-device processing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_tools, and no statement that the id must come from a prior listing/search call.

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