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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: matches are returned individually with citations, and results are not aggregated into trend claims, which tells the agent how to interpret and trust the output.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the input convention, then the output contract. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 format is partly covered by the tool itself. But for a seven-parameter tool with a nested pattern array and a filters object, the description omits how pagination (cursor/limit), repeat, tolerance_ms, and the filter fields behave, leaving real gaps for correct 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 explain the critical part—pattern steps must use taxonomy keys, not natural language—and hints that alignment depends on measured beats, but limit, cursor, repeat, filters, and tolerance_ms are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Find consecutive scene patterns') and adds the distinguishing constraint that steps use taxonomy keys rather than free text. It does not name or contrast with the clearly adjacent siblings (search_scenes, find_similar, typical_structure), so the agent must infer differentiation.

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?

'Optionally aligned with measured beats' implies when to set on_beat, and 'no small-sample trend claims' nudges away from the trends tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives among the many search/analysis siblings.

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