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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by specifying that this returns the *authored* scene/revision with editable lyric cue timing and owned media layers — i.e. source state, not a render — but says nothing about permissions, staleness, or revision semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the read scope and the contents of the payload are packed into one clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the behavioral profile — but with two required, undocumented identifiers and no guidance on when to choose this read over motion_status/motion_result, the definition is adequate rather than complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions projectId or documentId, so an agent gets no explanation of what either identifier accepts or how they relate (project vs scene document). The only hint, 'scene and revision', is not tied to any parameter.

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 (Read) and resource (the authored Motion scene and revision), and enumerates the payload contents (lyric cue timing, text and owned media layers). It distinguishes the authored-state read from the many generation-oriented motion siblings, but never names a specific alternative tool.

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 rather than stated: the phrase 'exact authored scene' suggests this is for inspecting the source document rather than a generated output (motion_result/preview), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the ~10 studio_motion_* siblings.

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