veo_get_1080p

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that default is lower resolution, that the tool is for completed videos, and that it returns task ID and new video URL. It does not mention side effects like rate limits, but for a read operation this is sufficient.

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 with bullet points and sections. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool with clear behavior. No wasted words.

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 has only one parameter, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and a clear description of return value (Task ID and video URL), the description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, but description adds important meaning: it clarifies that video_id is the 'id' field from video data, not the task_id, which prevents confusion. This goes beyond what the schema alone 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 clearly states the tool gets the 1080p high-resolution version of a generated video. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('1080p version'), and distinguishes from siblings like veo_upsample by specifying resolution and use case.

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 states when to use the tool (need higher resolution, after generation complete, for clearer output) and includes a prerequisite (video must be in 'succeeded' state). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, so it misses some exclusion criteria.

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