Get WAN-30.video resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds that the resources are 'canonical' and served without an external fetch, mildly reinforcing openWorldHint=false, but discloses nothing about return shape, size, or freshness.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the artifact being returned is stated before the constraint. The wording is slightly awkward ('WAN-30.video creation, guide, pricing, and policy resources') but every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description should explain what a 'resource' looks like (text, URLs, identifiers) and whether results are paginated or bundled. It establishes scope but leaves the return format entirely opaque, which matters more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 0%, but the single parameter is a self-documenting enum. The description enumerates the same values (creation, guide, pricing, policy) the schema already lists, so it adds little; the 'all' default and what each topic actually contains go unmentioned.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource (canonical WAN-30.video creation/guide/pricing/policy material), which is enough to distinguish it from the generation/diagnosis siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as build_wan3_video_prompt or diagnose_wan3_video_prompt. The clause 'without fetching external content' hints at a reason to prefer this over an external lookup, but it is a property of the tool, not usage guidance.

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