VeoMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing prerequisites (video must be in 'succeeded' state), processing context (default lower resolution for speed), and return format. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured with a clear opening statement, usage context, bulleted when-to-use list, prerequisite note, and return value summary. Every sentence adds essential information with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (post-processing operation), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, prerequisites, and return expectations without needing to duplicate schema information.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the parameter context ('video ID from a previous generation result') and distinguishing it from task_id, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules beyond what's in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('get') and resource ('1080p high-resolution version of a generated video'), distinguishing it from siblings like veo_text_to_video (creation) and veo_get_task (status checking). It explicitly explains this is for upscaling completed videos rather than initial generation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with three bullet points covering production needs, post-generation upscaling, and quality requirements. It also includes a critical exclusion note ('video must be in succeeded state'), preventing misuse before completion.

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