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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it runs live each time, spends the demo allowance, requires no credential, returns 'not released' until enabled, and includes an Ed25519 signature verifiable at a well-known URL. This covers cost, auth, side effects, output shape, and availability, which is far richer than the annotation hints alone.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and return content, followed by short sentences on freshness, cost, auth, and availability. The first sentence is long and uses a colon list, but every clause earns its place with 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?

Given the moderate complexity, complete schema coverage, and presence of annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the return format (without a separate output schema), the live-run nature, cost, and preconditions. It does not describe error handling for invalid reel IDs or the precise behavior when signing is not configured, but those gaps are minor.

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 the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Which reel to run; list_reels lists them.'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Run a reel live and read its transcript', and then enumerates exactly what the transcript contains. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like list_reels, so it falls short of a 5.

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 useful context for when to use the tool: 'Every read is a fresh run ... shows what the API answers now, not a recording.' It also warns about spending the demo allowance and states public/no-credential and availability constraints. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly exclude use cases.

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