veo_get_1080p

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the succeeded-state requirement, the return payload (task ID and new video URL), and the lower-resolution default. It does not mention asynchronous behavior beyond the callback_url hint or potential costs, but it covers the most critical operational constraint.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact context, a clearly formatted 'Use this when' list, a single note, and a return summary. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or redundancy.

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 three parameters, a rich schema, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the main precondition and result. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with veo_get_task or noting any asynchronous/cost implications, but the information provided is sufficient for correct use in most cases.

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 100%, and each parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the distinction between video_id and task_id, the need to pass the same model, and callback_url's optionality. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the 1080p high-resolution version of a generated video.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like veo_text_to_video or veo_get_task by focusing on upscaling an already generated video. The added context about Veo's default lower resolution further clarifies the tool's role.

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 includes an explicit 'Use this when' list covering production needs, completed generation, and clearer output, plus a key precondition (video must be in 'succeeded' state). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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