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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses asynchronous behavior ('returns immediately with a task_id'), the credit cost model (0.7 per delivered second, capped at requested duration), no scenario/language surcharge, and that failed jobs and polling are free. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or concurrency limits, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three tight paragraphs: capability first, cost/pricing second, async contract third. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 an async generation tool with 11 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: it explains the async task_id handoff, cost exposure, and success/failure economics. Output fields are already covered by the output schema, so its omission there is appropriate; permission/error semantics are the only unaddressed area.

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 explains prompt, action, ref_task_id, aspect, duration, scenario, and the presets. The description only reinforces the single-language constraint already encoded as maxItems:1 on langs, adding little semantic value beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create a complete video') and adds the iterate-on-a-prior-video case. It also names the sibling maestro_get_task for monitoring, so an agent can distinguish creation from the read/monitor tools without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear operating context: one task delivers one video in one language, and polling/progress goes through maestro_get_task. There is no explicit 'do not use this when...' carve-out, but the generate-vs-iterate routing and the monitor handoff are unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add real value by signaling the tool returns both 'live progress' (in-flight) and 'final outputs' (terminal), which tells the agent it is safe to poll. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope lead and every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema that already defines return values, the description covers purpose and the dual live/final nature adequately. It could be slightly richer on usage routing against maestro_list_tasks, but nothing essential is missing.

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 documents both task_id and compact, including the fact that compact suppresses the full brief and progress log. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... for one Maestro video task') plus the payload ('live progress and final outputs'), which clearly separates it from the sibling list/create tools. It is clear without explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'for one Maestro video task' and the singular scope imply this is the single-task retrieval path versus maestro_list_tasks, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read operation and the ownership scoping is useful, but the description says nothing about ordering, default page size, truncation/pagination behavior, or what 'recent' bounds — all of which are left to the schema's defaults.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is what leaves the guidelines and behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are documented at 100% coverage. For a simple read-only listing tool the description is close to sufficient; it only lacks guidance on when this method is preferable to its siblings.

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 all four optional parameters (limit, compact, created_at_min/max) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering or formatting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Maestro tasks) and narrows scope to 'recent' and 'owned by the authenticated user', which distinguishes it from maestro_get_task. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with either sibling or state what 'recent' means operationally.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as maestro_get_task for a single task or maestro_create_video for a new job. The user must infer that this is the browsing/enumeration entry point purely from the name.

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