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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations already tell the agent this is a safe, closed-catalog read. The description adds only that each entry carries a minimum people requirement, which is useful but modest given an output schema exists to convey the returned fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it spends its only clause on payload detail rather than on filtering or usage context.

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 zero required parameters, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the definition is largely adequate. The remaining gap is the unspecified default behavior when tradition or peopleCount are omitted, which matters for a two-optional-parameter catalog tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both the tradition examples and the peopleCount filtering ("Formations needing more people are left out"). The description's "minimum number of people each needs" duplicates rather than extends that, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Lists named ways a group of people stands in a shot") and clarifies the payload is name + minimum people count. It is understandable without the schema, but it does not distinguish this catalog from near-siblings like list_scene_traditions or list_preset_categories, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other listing tools, and no explanation of what happens when called with neither optional parameter. The agent is left to guess whether an unfiltered call returns all formations by default.

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