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 key behavioral traits: it describes the operation as a batch query for checking status (implying read-only), mentions efficiency benefits, and specifies what the tool returns ('Status and video information for all queried tasks'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 and concise: it opens with the core purpose, explains efficiency benefits, provides clear usage guidelines in bullet points, and specifies return values. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, and the information is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 (batch query operation), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, efficiency context, and behavioral expectations without needing to duplicate structured data.

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 parameter (task_ids array with maximum batch size recommendation). 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 multiple video generation tasks at once', 'check the status of multiple tasks') and distinguishes it from its sibling veo_get_task by emphasizing batch efficiency. It explicitly identifies the resource as 'video generation tasks' and the action as batch querying.

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 usage scenarios in a dedicated 'Use this when:' section, listing three specific contexts (multiple pending generations, several videos at once, tracking a batch). It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool veo_get_task by stating it's 'more efficient than calling veo_get_task multiple times', giving clear guidance on when to choose this alternative.

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