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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that the tool returns generated text artifacts and implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not describe how the parameters influence the output, any operational constraints, or whether external state changes occur. Minimal but not absent.

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 description is one compact sentence that front-loads the return value and then states the use case. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of the title.

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?

Given the low complexity, clear parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, but the sibling names are distinct and the usage context is clear.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already explains product_angle and audience clearly with concrete examples; the description adds no additional parameter insight, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('返回' / returns), a concrete resource ('短视频钩子框架库 + 黄金 5 段分镜脚本骨架'), and the exact purpose: writing scripts that retain viewers in the first 3 seconds. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like build_content_calendar and platform_playbook.

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?

The description gives a clear use context: '用于写出前 3 秒留人的脚本' (for writing scripts that hook viewers in the first 3 seconds). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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