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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return format (markdown) and the sections included, but says nothing about read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when the id is unknown or the formula does not exist.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the key noun phrase ('The full cross-video formula for one format') and follows with a tight colon list of returned sections. There is no filler, repetition, or buried information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it partially does by listing the markdown sections. However, with no annotations and an undocumented id parameter, it omits id requirements and error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 67%; context and llm_model are documented directly in the schema, while the required id parameter has no schema description. The description only implies that id selects 'one format' without specifying its format or source, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 resource ('the full cross-video formula for one format') and enumerates the returned content (structure, timing ranges, top-performer patterns, mistakes, template prompt), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_formulas or state a retrieval verb, but the purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_formulas or other getter siblings, no prerequisites (such as that the id likely comes from list_formulas), and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit 'for one format' scope.

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