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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'Does not render', which usefully confirms no compute/side effect, but the remaining range explanation largely restates the schema, and nothing is said about price persistence, expiry, or output shape.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the key 'does not render' caveat, but sentence fragments like 'range remaining is the rest of the planned film and follows the same plan as the site' are vague filler that an agent cannot act on.

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 and two fully documented parameters, the description only needs to clarify purpose and prerequisite, which it does. A little more on quoting behavior (e.g. cost-per-range differences) would make it complete.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the enum semantics for 'range'. The description's 'Pass projectId from plan_character_film' duplicates the schema text rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Quote') and resource ('Character Film range') and immediately scopes it with 'Does not render', which separates it from generation siblings like generate_character_film. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, but the quote/generate/plan distinction is inferable.

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 phrase 'Pass projectId from plan_character_film' implies the plan-then-quote prerequisite, and 'Does not render' hints at when to prefer this over generation. However it never states when a quote should be obtained versus calling generate_character_film directly, nor are alternatives named.

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