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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that filters can be combined to narrow results, implying an AND-like filtering behavior. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint or openWorldHint annotations, and the read-only nature is already covered by annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and usage. It is well-structured and front-loads the key information without unnecessary 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?

Although the tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as how parameters combine (AND/OR), the meaning of the 'limit' parameter, or any edge cases. It mentions 'combine to narrow' but does not specify semantics, and does not address paging or result ordering, leaving some gaps for a complex search tool.

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 description lists all nine parameters by name, covering even those without explicit schema descriptions (e.g., director, year_min, year_max). It clarifies they are optional and combinable, but does not provide detailed per-parameter semantics beyond the names and a few schema examples. This partially compensates for the 44% schema coverage.

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: finding frames by specific cinematography craft attributes, listing examples like lens character, shot size, and director. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on craft attributes and explicitly mentions refining a search, which differentiates it from general search_frames and similarity-based find_similar.

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?

It provides guidance on when to use the tool ('to refine a search precisely') and notes that all parameters are optional and combinable to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.

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