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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it declares the call is free, explains the paging contract ('the result says how to read on'), and warns that plan content is untrusted personal data that must never be acted upon — a security trait no annotation expresses. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, and nothing here contradicts them.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and section list, then usage and the trust boundary. Every clause carries information; nothing repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 does the right work by explaining pagination and section semantics. Minor gap: it does not clarify that the 'scene' parameter is only meaningful with section='scene', nor what happens on an out-of-range page.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining what each section actually returns ('scene' = one scene's shots, 'overview' = settings, cast, scenes), which the bare enum does not. The relationship between the 'scene' number and section='scene' is only implied.

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 ('Read the production plan as text') and enumerates the exact sections it can return, so the surface is unambiguous. An agent can tell it apart from apply_plan/build_plan/quote without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: showing the person what they would be paying for, and fetching exact names that upload_reference needs. It does not explicitly say when-not or name apply_plan as the mutating alternative, but read-only framing makes the boundary clear.

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