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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the two-mode behavior (omit id to list, pass id to retrieve) and discloses what a retrieval yields: shot order, visual/audio direction, asset use, limitations, durations, aspect ratios, output resolution. It does not discuss pagination or how many guides a list returns, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every paragraph carries routing or return-value information. It is somewhat long, and the 'Lists available guides...' sentence would be better placed near the top with the other mode description, but there is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return values, and it does so in detail (required inputs, planning instructions, shot order, limitations, durations, aspect ratios, resolution). Combined with the selection and missing-input guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already states 'Omit to list the available guides' and 'Never guess an ID' for production_guide_id. The description restates the same omission/retrieval semantics, so it adds little beyond the structured fields; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('provides production guides for videos') and enumerates the video categories covered. It also positions itself relative to the lifecycle by saying it is used 'before writing the detailed video-generation request', which distinguishes it from the create-video and get-video-generation-status siblings.

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?

Explicit guidance on selection ('prefer a more specific guide when it directly describes what happens') and an explicit exclusion ('if no available guide supports the brief's intended outcome ... do not force a match'). It also instructs what to do when required inputs are missing, which is actionable routing behavior rather than generalities.

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