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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: that it makes no state change, provider call or charge, and how likenessGate/look-test states are interpreted. Not a contradiction, but not exhaustive on error or edge behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then supporting semantics, and it stays compact. A couple of sentences (e.g. the price/readiness-gates line) are somewhat redundant given the annotations and output schema, but overall it is tight and earns most of its space.

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, yet the description helpfully frames them. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers the gate semantics. What remains unstated (error cases, pagination/size) is minor for a closed-world, idempotent read.

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 both parameters (projectId, revisionId) are documented in the schema, including the cross-reference to studio_sections_read. The description reinforces 'exact project and revision' but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it returns a named set of readiness fields (readyForVideo, shotsMissingStills, likenessGate, look-test state, reviewStills) for the exact project and revision. The scope is bound tightly to 'exact project and revision', which distinguishes it from the broader storyboard siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 by the readiness framing and the notes about when a likeness verdict or look acceptance is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives statement against siblings like studio_storyboard_preview or studio_storyboard_context. The agent must infer that this is the read-only gate check before video.

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