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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing what each mode returns — the list yields guides, required assets and production_guide_id, while retrieval yields shot order, visual/audio direction, asset use, limitations, durations, and aspect ratios. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the only notable gap.

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?

The workflow guidance is front-loaded (what the tool provides, then when to use it), and most sentences carry distinct information about selection, retrieval output, and validation. There is mild redundancy between 'Provides production guides' and 'Lists available guides,' but the length is justified by the multi-mode tool.

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 enumerates the fields returned and the two operating modes, plus the pre-call validation step for required assets. An agent would know both how to call it and what to expect back; only pagination/limits from the list mode 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema itself; the description largely restates the omit-to-list / pass-exact-id behavior without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds context but no new parameter mechanics.

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 resource (production guides for video types like try-ons, unboxings, demos, ads) and a clear dual action: list available guides or retrieve one guide's planning instructions. It also positions the tool relative to video generation ('before writing the detailed video-generation request'), though it never names the create-video sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('to determine how a requested video should be planned, structured, and directed before writing the detailed video-generation request'), a selection heuristic ('prefer a more specific guide when it directly describes what happens'), a when-NOT-to-use ('if no available guide supports the brief's intended outcome... do not force a match'), and a follow-up behavior for missing inputs.

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