video_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and locality are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether it fails on missing/unsupported files or that the fields it lists are also in the output schema (it largely restates them).

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 short sentence with zero padding, which is good, but it is front-loaded with return fields that the output schema already enumerates rather than with the action being performed.

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 an output schema present, the return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature, so the remaining burden is small. Still missing: what form input_path takes and what happens on invalid input, for a tool whose only failure surface is the path.

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% and the sole parameter input_path is undocumented in both places. The description never mentions the parameter, so it does not compensate — it's unclear whether input_path is a local filesystem path or a URL.

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 names the resource (video) and enumerates the metadata it surfaces, which lets an agent distinguish it from image_info/pdf_info/audio_info siblings. But it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never states that the tool reads/inspects a video file rather than, say, writing metadata.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the audio_info sibling that arguably overlaps on the audio-tracks field. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the inspection step before video_thumbnail.

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