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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: team-admin settings can disable the teleprompter or restrict to team scripts only, which silently hides personal scripts from the result. That visibility caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations can't convey. It doesn't cover pagination or result limits.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by visibility rules and sibling routing. Every sentence carries information, though the team-admin rules sentence is long and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape: word count, short preview, requirement level, and locked flag per script, plus ordering. Remaining gaps are search semantics for query and any result-size limits.

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 coverage is 50%: query is documented in the schema but scope's enum values carry no schema description. The description discusses team vs personal scripts and their rules, which implicitly grounds the scope values, but it never explicitly ties that to the scope parameter, and it says nothing about the query search behavior.

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 verb and resource (listing the teleprompter scripts a user can record with) and immediately specifies the composition and ordering of the result: team scripts first, then personal scripts. It names the related siblings get_script and save_script, so an agent can distinguish listing from fetching full text or writing.

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 routes the agent: use get_script for full text, use save_script to write personal scripts, and it explains that team scripts are read-only here. It doesn't state explicit trigger conditions versus other list_* siblings, but the alternatives and their roles are clearly laid out.

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