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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), while the description discloses substantive behavior: ordering semantics, that unscheduled shots come last, and what continuesFromShotId / isUnscheduled mean. With no output schema, this return-shape detail is the only disclosure an agent gets and it is thorough.

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 and ordering rule are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the field inventory is dense but earns its place given the missing output schema. It is a single long paragraph rather than several sentences, but there is little waste.

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 a read-only, two-parameter list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the returned fields, ordering behavior, and edge-case semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 both parameters are already documented in-schema; the description largely repeats the sceneId filtering and its source. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema, not the description, carries parameter meaning.

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 ('List the storyboard shots of the project') and immediately scopes it with the timeline ordering rule. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_project_outline or get_scene, which expose outline/scene data rather than the shot list.

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 tells the agent how to narrow to one scene ('Pass sceneId from get_project_outline') and where projectId comes from, which is real routing guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, 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.