Check a video by link

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

With annotations covering safety flags, the description still adds high-value operational context: credit cost (one per started minute), an expected latency bound (~1 minute), and the async continuation behavior of returning an id. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to plan a call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then cost and latency, then the fallback. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still covers cost, timing, and the failure/continuation path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load — and it does, specifying that the url must be a public link and listing the supported platforms plus direct file URLs. It could still clarify format/validation, hence not a 5.

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+resource ('Check whether the video... was generated by AI') and enumerates the accepted sources (TikTok, Instagram, X, YouTube, Facebook, direct file URL), which makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling check_file.

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?

Clearly frames the use case (detect AI-generated video) and explicitly routes to the sibling get_check when the check has not finished in time, including the condition. It does not state when this tool should be avoided in favor of another, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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