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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds real behavior: it caps results at 50, warns 'Nothing is analysed by this tool' (clarifying it does not trigger analysis), and notes 'Shot references affect only bound shots.' These are useful scoping facts not derivable from annotations.

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?

The purpose and scoping modes lead, followed by return fields and behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries information with no filler, though the return-field enumeration is slightly dense.

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 an output schema present, the return fields need not be spelled out, yet the description covers scoping, pagination, and the crucial 'no analysis performed' caveat. Combined with annotations it is complete enough to call correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 an output schema exists, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the limit ('up to 50'), the cursor ('nextCursor') and project scoping, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

It states a clear verb and resource ('Browse customer image/video references') with two scoping modes: across all accessible projects or filtered to one. This is unambiguously distinct from the add/delete/note siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the routing.

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?

'across their accessible projects, or filter one project' gives the agent a clear condition for choosing between the broad and scoped call. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g. versus studio_shot_video_references_read), so nothing is explicit about exclusions.

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