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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact - no credit/paid work is consumed - plus the ownership scope ('owned'), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or failure modes.

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 resource being read, then the disambiguation, then the cost note. The final fragment 'No paid work' is terse but carries information; nothing is padded.

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, parameter-light read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is read, that it is free, and how it differs from a similar resource. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists; only deeper scoping details are absent.

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 100% and all three required IDs (projectId, revisionId, shotId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantics such as what 'current revision' means or how IDs are obtained.

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 (owned driving-video references for a shot), and explicitly distinguishes the payload from extracted reference pictures. It does not name the write sibling studio_shot_video_references_write, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

The contrast with 'extracted reference pictures' implicitly tells the agent when this resource is the right one, and 'No paid work' signals a free operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or routing to an alternative tool.

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