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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that absent precomputed data is explicitly surfaced rather than silently computed — but says nothing about whether it computes on demand, staleness, or pagination behavior.

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 with the primary content enumeration front-loaded and no filler. The compressed list of returned facets is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but every clause carries information.

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 values needn't be described, but for a three-parameter paginated tool with zero schema description coverage the definition leaves the agent guessing about slug semantics and pagination. Combined with no guidance against a large sibling set, it is under-specified for its complexity.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds no meaning. Nothing explains the slug format, what 'limit' bounds (12 default, max 50), or how 'cursor' paging interacts with the precomputed strip.

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?

The description names the resource concretely (narrative sequences, durations, audio arc, voice, CTA, whole-video sync) and uses an explicit read verb, so an agent knows it returns a precomputed structural analysis. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_video, get_audio_map, typical_structure, or plan_structure, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_video, get_scenes, or typical_structure, nor any prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent signal is the note that a missing precomputed strip is reported, which hints at a failure mode rather than guiding tool selection.

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