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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the extra value here is the disclosure of output shape: each rule carries n of N films, library-wide commonality, method and example films. This prepares the agent for aggregate, evidence-backed results rather than raw film data. No statement about result size or latency, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the long trait enumeration is justified because it tells the agent exactly what dimensions the rules cover. The closing caveat about catalogue vs. official guidelines earns its place. Slightly dense in the first sentence but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still sketches the per-rule structure in a way that helps the agent compose a plan. Combined with annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is close to self-sufficient; only the slug parameter is left underexplained.

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 0% for the single 'slug' parameter — only the regex and length bounds are given. The description's repeated framing around 'a brand' and 'its published launches' implies the slug identifies a brand, but it never says so explicitly or notes the slug format. Adequate inference, not full compensation for the coverage gap.

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 resource (a brand's house style) and what it contains — validated rules across palette, type, scene formats, techniques, transitions, camera, opening, CTA, voice, length and pace. The framing 'as rules an agent can follow, counted film by film' is distinct, though no sibling tool (e.g. get_brand, get_formula, typical_structure) is named as a contrast point.

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?

Provides one positive usage cue — 'Use it to plan a film in that brand's style' — plus a scope caveat that it reflects the catalogue rather than official guidelines. It gives no when-not-to-use conditions and does not route the agent to alternatives such as get_formula or typical_structure for the same planning task.

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