validate_analysis

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: no analysis creation or credit spending, return of analysis_preview, interpretation of 'assessable: false', and null handling for estimated_seconds/cost when video duration is unknown. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief but information-dense: two compound sentences lead with the core purpose and then efficiently cover return fields and usage recommendation. Every clause adds meaningful detail without 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?

With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description adds the missing context: when to use it, what triggers null values, and how to interpret assessable. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'assessable: false' implies the prompt may need rephrasing as a yes/no or count question, and clarifies when cost/seconds are null—semantics beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'Dry-run a prompt WITHOUT creating an analysis or spending credits.' It identifies the exact resource (analyses) and differentiates from siblings like create_analysis by emphasizing the dry-run nature.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this tool before create_analysis to 'catch unassessable prompts and preview cost.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the primary alternative (create_analysis), making the usage context unambiguous.

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