get_video_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds non-redundant information: that no credits are spent, which is a cost behavior the annotations cannot express and which matters in a credit-metered product. It does not describe whether the returned options are account- or plan-specific, which would have been the final piece.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the negative guarantee (no generation, no credit spend). Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant fact for an agent is stated first.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description carries exactly the remaining burden: it enumerates what the response will contain so the agent can judge relevance without a return schema. For a simple read-only discovery tool, nothing an agent needs before calling it is absent.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty object schema already shows; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter meaning is missing or misleading.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("List") plus a precise resource ("read-only Veo video generation options") and enumerates the exact contents: input modes, durations, resolutions, aspect ratios, credit-cost estimates. It also explicitly negates the closest sibling behavior ("does not generate video"), so an agent can distinguish it from generate_video and run_video_function without opening any schema.

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 closing sentence clearly signals this is a discovery/metadata call rather than a generation call, implicitly routing video creation to generate_video. It stops short of stating the explicit trigger (e.g. "call this before generate_video to pick a valid mode/duration/resolution"), so the when-to-use is clear but not fully spelled out.

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