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 bar is low. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the actual payload content: timing, OCR box meaning, heuristic motion measurements, source provenance, verification and missing-data reasons — useful detail about what the read returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource forms. No filler; the second sentence wastes nothing in listing recipe contents.

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 shape need not be described. But for a tool with zero schema description coverage and two identifier parameters, the description leaves a real ambiguity (id vs scene_id) unresolved, so it is not quite complete enough for confident invocation.

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%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning. It does map the three `depth` values to distinct content (card/sheet/recipe), which is genuinely helpful. However, it says nothing about the distinction between `id` and `scene_id`, two overlapping identifier parameters left entirely unexplained.

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 names the three concrete resource forms (card, annotated sheet, measured recipe), which maps onto the `depth` enum. It does not explicitly say it retrieves a single scene or contrast itself with the singular sibling get_scenes, but the resource is unambiguous.

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: the enumeration of what each depth returns hints at which variant to pick, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-get_scenes/search_scenes guidance. The agent must infer the selection logic from the content list.

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