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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output (public video URL), latency (1-2 minutes), cost (600 credits), and a mandatory confirmation step. This goes beyond minimal safety information and significantly informs the agent about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core function, followed by output, latency, and a prominent cost warning. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has a moderate parameter count (4) with full schema coverage. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return (public URL). It also covers cost and timing, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline 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?

The description clearly states 'Generate a short cinematic marketing video using Sora-2' – a specific verb (Generate), resource (video), and model (Sora-2). It also notes it returns a public video URL. The sibling list contains no other video generation tools, so this uniquely identifies the tool's purpose.

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 description provides clear context (cinematic marketing video) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools. It does include 'Always confirm with the user before calling' which is a pre-use requirement. No explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' statements, making it clear context but without exclusions.

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