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

The description frames the operation as a read of evidence, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so an agent could reasonably infer a safe read from the text and be misled. It does add genuine scope detail beyond the annotations (which evidence classes are returned, and the stale applied phase safety question), which keeps this above a 1, but the read framing conflicts with the declared mutation risk.

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 sentences with no wasted words; the resource scope is front-loaded and the sibling exclusion is placed as a compact second sentence. Slightly dense phrasing ('phase, checkpoint and apply evidence') costs a point on immediate parseability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers what evidence is read plus the stale-phase question. For a 6-parameter, nested-object, authorization-gated tool it is still thin: nothing explains the authorization/session requirements, the request_key/idempotency contract, or the relationship to the recover tool.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no meaning for work_id, arguments.project_id, arguments.request_id, request_key, or publication_proposal_id, all of which lack schema descriptions. Only the vague phrase 'exact authorized Film run' gestures at the authorization semantics that request_key, work_id, and read_skills presumably encode, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') against named resources ('Standard-run phase, checkpoint and apply evidence') for an 'exact authorized Film run', and explicitly excludes Agentic run model-step ledgers. An agent can tell this is a Standard-run diagnostic reader, though it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as native.diagnose_film_studio_generation, native.get_run_status, or native.recover_film_studio_run.

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 one implicit exclusion ('This is not an Agentic run's model-step ledger') and mentions the stale-applied-phase question, which hints at when it is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer native.recover_film_studio_run or native.get_run_status instead, and no stated prerequisites for the authorization it references.

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