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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read. The description usefully adds that source media are preserved (a non-destructive guarantee beyond the flag) and that the returned links are authenticated, which is behavioral context the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and output, with no filler. Efficient, though the phrasing ('owned asset', 'Source media remain preserved') is slightly terse/cryptic rather than maximally clear.

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 explained. However, for a two-parameter tool it omits how operationId is obtained and how this call relates to studio_motion_create/status/wait in the generation lifecycle, which an agent would need to invoke it correctly in sequence.

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 both required parameters (projectId, operationId) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions only output fields (video.url), so it does not compensate for the gap in explaining how projectId/operationId are sourced or constrained.

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 (finished owned asset), plus what it yields (video.url and playback/download links). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the numerous sibling result/status tools (studio_motion_status, studio_motion_read, studio_motion_wait, studio_creative_result), so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

'Pending work is not a completed result' gives an implicit exclusion (don't call this for in-progress work), which implies the tool is for finished operations. But it never names the alternative tools to use for pending/in-progress cases, leaving routing to inference.

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