video_language_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is a read-only query, whether it hits a remote service, or what 'honest' implies about the reliability of sibling tools' language claims. With zero-param and an output schema the exposure is limited, but the safety profile remains unstated.

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 tight sentence with no padding and the key scoping terms front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though 'honest' is a word that could be dropped in favor of concrete scope.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description need not enumerate return fields, so the bar is low. Still, it never explains what a 'surface' is or what form the coverage report takes, leaving ambiguity that the schema cannot resolve for a caller deciding whether to invoke it.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys; baseline 4 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?

The description names the resource (language coverage) and scopes it to three surfaces (transcribe/translate/dub), which does distinguish it from most siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no clear verb — an agent cannot tell whether it reports, configures, or validates coverage. 'Honest' is editorializing rather than clarifying.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as video_info, video_dub_plan, or video_ai_transcribe. No prerequisites or triggering context are given, leaving the agent to infer the use case entirely.

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