image_to_video_get_started

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the output (URL and checklist) but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether the function is non-destructive, requires auth, or how locale affects output. However, it is not misleading.

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 sentence, straightforward, no fluff.

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 is simple with one optional param, but the description doesn't explain what the checklist contains or how the URL varies. Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return format. Given the tool's intended first-step purpose, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has one parameter (locale) with enum and default but zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the locale parameter at all, so the agent gets no semantic guidance about its purpose or effect.

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 the tool's function with the specific verb 'return' and identifies the resource (Image to Video AI workspace URL) plus an additional output (preflight checklist). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the 'getting started' step.

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 implies usage context ('get started') but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like build_prompt or plan. It doesn't provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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