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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful methodology by explaining that frequencies are per-video proportion distributions to prevent long edits from dominating, but it omits cursor pagination behavior, minimum sample thresholds, and broadening semantics.

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 description is two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining why the frequency metric is normalized per video.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters, nested filters, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is too thin: it leaves sample-size requirements, broadening behavior, pagination, and filter semantics unexplained. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but input-side completeness is poor.

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 seven parameters, including a nested filters object. The description only hints at the kind values (next role, transition, techniques) and the after_role concept; it never explains limit, cursor, filters, min_videos, or allow_broaden.

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 states a specific analytical resource: what follows a narrative role, with result types of next role, transition, or technique. It does not name sibling tools such as typical_structure or pattern_search, so differentiation from alternatives is left implicit.

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?

The description implies a narrative-pattern analysis use case, but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like pattern_search or typical_structure. It also gives no guidance on when to use options like allow_broaden or min_videos.

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