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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile; it instead adds the important behavioral fact that the result is plain text and that skipping the 'motion' guide causes downstream composition failures. It does not indicate guide length or whether reads are cheap enough to repeat liberally, which would have completed the picture.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the semicolon-delimited topic list carries dense, non-redundant information in a single paragraph. Given the 0% schema coverage of the enum, every clause about the topics earns its place; 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 one required enum parameter, no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers everything needed: what is returned (text), what each topic contains, and the cost of omitting the contract guide. No further detail is required to invoke this tool 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 0%, so the schema gives only a bare enum, yet the description compensates by defining the meaning and intended use of every one of the eight allowed values. An agent can choose the correct topic without any external knowledge.

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 ("Returns one of Motion's authoring guides as text") and then enumerates all eight guide topics, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. Highly distinguishable from siblings like get_composition or inspect_composition, which operate on compositions rather than documentation.

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?

Each enum value is annotated with when to reach for it — 'motion' is framed as mandatory ('compositions written without it usually fail'), 'motion-craft' as the fix for output that 'look[s] generated', and the remaining topics are scoped to typography, named looks, sequencing, worked examples, live workflow and critique. This functions as explicit topic-selection guidance, and no exclusion clauses are needed because no sibling tool competes for this job.

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