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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the no-EPISODE fallback, the episode-0 bucket for pre-episode scenes, per-episode label restart, and what stats.episodeCount actually counts. This is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure structured fields can't carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return structure and then next-step routing. It is dense and on the longer side, but each clause (episode 0, label restart, episodeCount semantics) carries distinct information rather than repeating itself.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly, including the shapes of scene and stats objects and the special cases. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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 single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema ('from list_projects'). The description adds no independent parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Overview of one project') and enumerates exactly what the outline contains: title, aspectRatio, stats breakdown, and the script's episodes with scenes in order. It clearly differentiates the outline from detail siblings like get_scene and search_script.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the entry point ('Start here, then use get_scene, list_shots or search_script with the ids it returns'), naming the alternatives and the condition. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, 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.