quote_video

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is free, performs no generation, and does not download images. This gives an agent a solid safety model: quoting is non-destructive and non-spending. It could add rate-limit or auth context, but what's here is meaningful and accurate.

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 sentences, no filler: the first states the core action, the second gives selection guidance, the third explains a subtle behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context to select and invoke it correctly: it returns cost and model, it is free, and it does not generate or download. The parameter details are handled by the schema. A slightly deeper note about how quoting interacts with modelSlug or imageUrl would push it higher, but no essential fact for usage 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?

Schema coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description adds a high-level framing ('credit cost and model') but does not go deeper into individual parameters. That is acceptable given the rich schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Price a generation') and immediately distinguishes this tool from the sibling that spends credits ('generate_video is the one that spends credits'). It also states what it returns—credit cost and the model that would be used—so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 says this is 'the right way to answer what would this cost' and contrasts it with generate_video, which is the credit-spending alternative. The guidance is directly usable for tool selection, even without weighing all siblings.

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