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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is low; the description still adds meaningful non-annotation context by disclosing that results are paginated and that each entry reports tier and plan unlock eligibility. No rate limits or auth notes, but nothing contradicts the 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?

Two tight sentences; the core listing behavior and its scoping filters come first, with the alternative-tool pointer last. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload (tier, plan unlock) and pagination, and params are mostly self-documented. Only the offset parameter's semantics are left unaddressed.

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 75% and three of four parameters (kind, style, limit) are already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that filtering by style or kind is optional and that results paginate, without new syntax or format detail.

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 and resource (list StudioMotion agency sections) plus the filter dimensions (style, kind) and what each result carries (tier, plan unlock status). It is clearly distinguishable from get_section (single item) and search_sections (free-text), which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes free-text lookups to search_sections, and notes the style/kind filters are optional. It does not address when to prefer get_section or how browsing relates to search, so the routing is good but not exhaustive.

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