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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them with a genuinely useful data-model explanation: a clip's source is a take, a text card, or an upload, `takes` and `uploads` carry the media, and a clip absent from both has no usable media. That tells the agent how to interpret a returned clip, which annotations cannot.

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?

Two sentences, no padding, with the core action and returned contents front-loaded before the media-resolution caveat. The second sentence is dense but each clause conveys distinct information about clip sources and media availability.

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 it does so concretely by enumerating the timeline fields. The single required parameter is fully documented in the schema, and existing annotations cover the safety profile, so the only real omission is error/empty-result behavior.

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 exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cut_id (including its provenance from list_cuts). The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('Read one cut') and enumerates what the returned timeline document contains (clips, voiceovers, music, captions, aspect ratio, version). The singular 'one cut' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_cuts, but the description never names that alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative is named. The only routing hint, that cut_id comes 'from list_cuts', lives in the input schema rather than the description. An agent must infer the list-then-get workflow on its own.

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