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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds valuable scope information: it returns only title, kind, and workflow status, and nested storyboard content is not handled here.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the important scope limitation. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich safety annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and the important exclusion about nested editing. An agent has enough information to call 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 coverage is 100%, and the id parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from search results or a list. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 read verb and resource: fetch one storyboard. It clarifies the returned scope (title, kind, workflow status) and explicitly excludes nested cards/shots/scenes, which distinguishes it from list/update/create siblings and from tools that would edit storyboard internals.

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?

Usage is implied by 'fetch one' and the schema's required id, and the description gives one useful exclusion: nested cards/shots/scenes are edited in Bardiyah rather than through this server. However, it does not explicitly say to use list-storyboards first to find the id or otherwise contrast this with sibling tools.

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