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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: results are limited to published/reviewed videos and media assets are never exported, which tells the agent what it will and will not get back. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the shape of the summary.

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, zero waste. The positive payload description comes first and the negative constraint (no media export) follows, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for capability.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be spelled out, and the media-export exclusion is a helpful boundary. But with 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the definition leaves the agent guessing about slug semantics and page-size defaults — gaps the description should have closed.

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 carries the burden, and it only partially does: "paginated" hints at the limit/cursor pair but never explains their interaction or the default page size. The required slug parameter — arguably a video identifier versus a board or brand slug — is never characterized in the description at all.

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 enumerates the exact resources returned: summary, style measurements, and paginated scene cards. That is more precise than the title alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_video_structure, get_scene, or get_scenes, which an agent must infer.

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?

"published, reviewed" implies a precondition — only videos in that state are readable — but it is stated as a property of the payload rather than as a rule for when to call this versus a sibling. No alternative is named, and there is no guidance on what to do when a video is not yet published or reviewed.

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