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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that the export has an in-progress state ('when done'), implying polling, but does not describe possible status values, error states, or expiry of the resulting URL.

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?

One compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the return values enumerated after the colon. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 must carry the return shape, and it does list the meaningful fields (status, film URL, frame size, frame rate) for a single-parameter read. Only the polling contract and status enumeration are 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting export_id as coming 'from export_cut'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully carries the parameter.

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 (Read) and resource (an export), and enumerates the key return fields (status, film URL, frame size, frame rate), which lets an agent distinguish it from the write-oriented export_cut sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative, but the read-vs-create split is inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'when done' hints that this is an asynchronous result that must be polled until completion, but the description never says when to call it, how often, or how it relates to export_cut. The schema's 'from export_cut' note carries most of the linkage.

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