quote_video

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that the call 'spends no credits', establishing it as a safe read-like operation, and names the return fields (quote_id, total_credits, clips, balance). It omits whether quotes expire, whether they are idempotent, and any auth or error behavior for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost behavior, then return shape, then the workflow constraint. Nothing repeats and every sentence carries information.

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 10-parameter nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and return fields, which is meaningful. However it is silent on which mutually exclusive parameter paths (block vs duration vs duration_target) to use, leaving the most error-prone decision undocumented.

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 only 60% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — no explanation of tier, ratio, resolution, or the interplay between block, duration, and duration_target. The description leaves the agent to infer mode selection entirely from the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Quote a video in whole credits') and implicitly contrasts with run_quote by noting it spends nothing. The agent can tell this is the pre-flight cost estimate rather than the execution call, though the phrase 'in whole credits' is slightly opaque without reading further.

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?

Gives explicit workflow routing: 'Always show the price to the user before run_quote' tells the agent this is the mandatory step preceding run_quote. It does not address when to choose block-based quoting versus duration/duration_target quoting, so parameter-selection guidance is absent.

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