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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing side effects. It discloses that the call does not settle a payment and does not create a job, signaling a non-mutating quote operation. However, it does not describe the response content, idempotency, or any failure modes.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately states key exclusions. No filler, but the cryptic 'clears_now vs price ceiling vs funding' could be clearer to an agent without domain knowledge.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter descriptions, this text leaves important gaps: it does not explain what the quote response contains, how clears_now is computed, or how the price ceiling and funding instructions relate to the result. It is too thin for a six-parameter tool that an agent must call correctly.

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 only 17%—only 'model' is documented—and the description itself mentions none of the six parameters. It adds no meaning to prompt, audio, duration, resolution, or aspect_ratio, leaving the agent without guidance on how inputs affect the quote.

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 the POST /v1/video/quote endpoint and frames it as a pre-queue check, with 'no settle, no job' clarifying that this is not a job-creation or settlement operation. It differentiates from generation tools through negation, though it never plainly states that it returns a price estimate.

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?

'before queue' provides a clear temporal condition for when to call this tool, and the instruction to compare clears_now, price ceiling, and funding defines its role in the workflow. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as video_queue or set_max_price, but the context is unambiguous.

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