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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the dual source of truth for 'filmed' (is_filmed vs queue_filmed_at) that can diverge, the filmed > in_progress > not_filmed priority rule, snapshot semantics for video_views/likes/comments that do not refresh, and the fact that error is a human-readable message rather than an exception string.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on of chained clauses, parentheticals, and typographic emphasis (ДВУХ, НЕ). Every fact is relevant, yet it could be restructured into shorter sentences without losing information.

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 read-only 4-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description does much of the return-shape work by naming the fields an agent will receive and warning about stale metrics and divergent filming flags. Only pagination/default behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that filmed=not_filmed also matches unfinished analyses and that in_progress derives from the same priority rule as the web tabs. That materially helps an agent pick the right enum value rather than relying on the terse schema strings.

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 opening states a specific resource (owner's analyses with production state) and enumerates the content returned: status/progress, reel metadata, x-factor with x_basis, library script, and both filming flags. It is clearly distinguishable from analysis_get or library_list by naming the returned fields, though it never explicitly says how it differs from the single-item fetch sibling.

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?

Usage context is implied by the field inventory and by explaining what the filmed filter does (not_filmed also includes unfinished analyses, in_progress follows the web tab priority rule). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative such as analysis_get or shooting_queue_list.

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