VeoMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by explaining the three possible task states ('processing', 'succeeded', 'failed') and what they mean, and specifies that it returns 'task status and generated video information including URLs and state'. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling details.

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 well-structured and efficiently organized with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines, task states explanation, and returns information. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information, and the most important information (purpose) comes first.

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 (single parameter, status checking operation), the description provides complete context. With an output schema available, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, and behavioral characteristics. The task states explanation adds valuable operational context.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'task_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

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 verbs ('query', 'check', 'retrieve') and resources ('status and result of a video generation task', 'video URLs and metadata'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like veo_text_to_video or veo_image_to_video by focusing on status checking rather than initiating 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 explicitly lists three specific use cases ('when you want to check if a generation has completed', 'need to retrieve video URLs from a previous generation', 'want to get the full details of a generated video'), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also implicitly distinguishes from batch operations (veo_get_tasks_batch) by focusing on single tasks.

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