Veo 3.1 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool's purpose and timing, it doesn't describe what the estimation process entails, whether it requires authentication, if it has rate limits, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. For a cost estimation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and timing, while the second explains the value proposition. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 cost estimation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the estimation returns (just 'cost in USD' without format details), doesn't mention whether this is a real API call or local calculation, and provides minimal behavioral context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it does provide context about why parameters matter ('Helps plan budgets and batch sizes'), which adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: estimating cost in USD for video generation requests. It specifies the action ('estimate cost'), resource ('video generation request'), and context ('before starting it'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_video_generation' beyond the 'before starting' timing hint.

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 provides implied usage context: 'Helps plan budgets and batch sizes' and 'before starting it' suggests this should be used prior to actual generation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or mention specific prerequisites beyond the timing suggestion.

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