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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying it is side-effect-free ('no planning model or other work starts') and by enumerating the payload (audioAnalysisId, expectedRevisionId, fixed skeleton, submission schema).

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 what is returned and followed by payload specifics and a behavioral caveat. Dense but each clause carries information; no 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though a note on prerequisites or ordering relative to submit/approve would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only implies the project context and adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema for projectId or targetShotCount.

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 ('Returns') and enumerates the exact resource contents (song analysis, brief, Artist DNA, references, shot timings, storyboard). Clear purpose, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like studio_storyboard_preview or studio_storyboard_readiness.

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 closing line 'No planning model or other work starts' implies this is a safe pre-step context read, which hints at when to call it. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit condition for choosing this over the other storyboard read/preview tools.

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