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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds only that the registry is 'live' and that it should precede project work; it says nothing about return format, filtering behavior, or result size. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding, and the purpose statement is front-loaded ahead of the usage cue. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 read-only registry listing with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys purpose and a usage trigger but omits what a capability entry contains and what category filters. Adequate for a simple tool, with clear gaps.

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?

There is one optional 'category' parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. The description never mentions category, its accepted values, or its filtering effect, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Lists the live action registry.' The phrase 'live action registry' gives more than a bare restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate from the closely overlapping sibling studio_describe_capabilities, leaving the list-vs-describe distinction to inference.

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?

Provides a clear triggering context: 'Call this before preparing or modifying a project.' That tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming the alternative (studio_describe_capabilities) or stating when not to use it, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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