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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description explains the returned content and semantics: ids, labels, defaults, price per photo, and that each shot is one photo with a default selection of all. It also clarifies how the tool connects to start_shoot, which is valuable behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the resource and returned contents, then adds the key shot-selection and start_shoot integration details.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough detail about what is returned and how the result is used by start_shoot. There are no apparent gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 100% for the single slug parameter, so the schema already defines its meaning. The description reinforces that the slug identifies a pack or mix, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a pack's or mix's options and lists the concrete contents: outfit, place, light, shots, shape, attribute pickers, ids, labels, defaults, and price per photo. It is easy to distinguish from list_packs or start_shoot, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 final sentence, 'start_shoot takes these ids,' gives clear contextual guidance that this tool is used to retrieve the ids and options needed before starting a shoot. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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