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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond that by detailing the returned artifacts and noting the depth map is 'precomputed and free,' which informs cost/effort expectations. No contradiction with 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical use case without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the returned data, clarifies the input, and gives a use case. The annotations cover safety, and no additional context seems necessary for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It clarifies that frameId identifies a single frame and that the depth map belongs to 'this frame,' but it does not explain where a valid frameId comes from or any format constraints. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full metadata + preview thumbnail + full-resolution image URL + depth map URL + link') for a single frame id. This clearly differentiates from sibling search/find tools by focusing on a single existing frame rather than retrieval or discovery.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'use it when the user is generating images and needs the composition or camera geometry of this frame.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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