Venice Video Cost Quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds 'No authentication required' (useful context) but doesn't disclose what the quote returns (cost amount, currency, validity period), whether pricing is per-second/per-duration, or how it handles unknown models. For a quote tool where the output format is a key mystery (no output schema), this is a significant gap.

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, focused sentences that each earn their place: purpose, when-to-use guidance, and authentication note. No wasted words. Could be slightly better structured but is efficient and readable.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate. It covers purpose and usage clearly but omits what the quote response looks like, cost units, and edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown model IDs). For a 2-param tool with good schema coverage, it's adequate but leaves the most important unknown—what the quoted price output contains—undocumented.

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 100%, so the schema documents both parameters well. The description adds the crucial context that duration is model-specific (aligning with the schema's 'model-specific string enum' note). While the description doesn't add much param detail beyond the schema, the schema itself is already comprehensive with examples, earning a baseline-above-3.

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 clearly states it provides a price quote for video generation and specifies the timing ('BEFORE queuing'). The verb 'Get a price quote' plus the resource 'video generation' is specific. It distinguishes from venice_video_generate by emphasizing the pre-queue quoting purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with venice_audio_quote as a sibling.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Always quote-generate before queue when model pricing is unknown.' This is a clear 'when to use' instruction tied to a condition (unknown pricing). It doesn't spell out when NOT to use it, but the conditional phrasing sufficiently implies usage context.

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