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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: fixed typewriter grids, A3 landscape layout, scene-by-scene alignment, required matching scene-heading counts, mismatch-return behavior, credit cost, and free re-rendering within 24 hours. These details help an agent understand both output behavior and billing-related consequences.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then adds only relevant details about layout, alignment constraints, mismatch behavior, and credits. Despite its length, every sentence provides useful information for correct invocation.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers inputs, the non-translation behavior, scene-alignment constraints, failure behavior, and credit implications.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including input_format and translation requirements. The description reinforces that the original uses format_screenplay-style inputs and that translation must match scene headings, but most parameter-level meaning is already carried by the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it renders a bilingual side-by-side screenplay PDF. It distinguishes this from related tools by explaining that it takes the original screenplay plus a user-provided translation and typesets them together, rather than translating or formatting a single-language screenplay.

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?

It clearly states the input pattern: submit the original screenplay using the same inputs as format_screenplay plus a translation. It also says the translation is user-provided and the tool never translates, which implicitly rules out using it as a translation tool. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative to use for monolingual formatting.

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