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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new facts on top: output is rows plus a CSV with the brief's columns, no footage bytes are transferred, and description/size/notes appear only conditionally after Describe shots has run. It does not cover pagination or what happens if the panel is disconnected beyond the deviceId hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable ('Build the numbered V1 shot log') and efficiently packs field list, return shape, and the prerequisite call. The single long clause-stacked sentence is dense but every clause carries information; a break after the return-shape statement would improve scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return artifacts (rows and a CSV) and their column source. 'The brief's columns' is the one soft spot — an agent cannot tell exactly which columns are present or whether ordering is guaranteed — but for a one-parameter read tool this is substantively complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining deviceId is obtained from premiere_list_connections. The description reinforces that same provenance but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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 artifact — 'Build the numbered V1 shot log (SH001, SH002…)' from the panel's shared sequence — and enumerates the exact fields produced (timeline in/out, source in/out, duration in timecode and ticks, source file, clip reference, plus description/size/notes). It is far from a restatement of the name, but it never distinguishes itself from look-alike siblings such as export_shot_log, log_shots, or quote_shot_log, so an agent cannot rule those out from this text alone.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ordering ('First call premiere_list_connections to get the deviceId') and a clear precondition for the richer output ('once Describe shots has run in the panel'). It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance and never says why to pick this over export_shot_log or log_shots.

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