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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value on top: the lifecycle states returned, that each script carries its shots and lines, that line language is reported, and that the response includes what was omitted from the description. 'Free' also discloses a billing trait not present in any annotation; it stops short of saying whether queued scripts require polling or what a failure payload looks like.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the source (write_scripts) is front-loaded. It is a run-on fragment though, and the phrase 'what it left out of the description' is grammatically ambiguous and takes a second read to parse.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so reasonably: statuses, shots, lines, language, and omissions. What is missing is the polling implication for non-terminal states and any note on response shape or size, which matters for a tool that can return in-flight results.

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% and the schema already explains that id is 'the id write_scripts answered.' The description reinforces the provenance of that id but adds no format, example, or multi-id behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names the specific resource (scripts produced by write_scripts) and enumerates the statuses it covers (queued, in_progress, ready, failed) plus the payload (shots, lines, language, omissions). An agent can distinguish it from get_video or get_described, though the retrieval verb itself is only implied by the name rather than stated.

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 is only implied: 'Scripts written by write_scripts' plus the required id tells the agent this is the follow-up call to write_scripts. 'Free' hints that this costs no credits, unlike the make_* siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of polling while a script is queued/in_progress, and no named alternative.

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