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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the 30-day recency window, the newest-first ordering, and the exclusion logic that only unused drafts are returned, which tells the agent why some drafts will be 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 content is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a run-on fragment and the second sentence restates the same two conditions at greater length ('shot lists not made yet' versus 'no video was made from'), so meaningful redundancy exists. Trimming to one precise sentence plus the routing hint would lose nothing.

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?

For a read-only single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (draft shot lists and lookbooks), the eligibility rules, the time window and the ordering. The remaining gap is the shape of each returned item, which is minor given the routing to get_music_video_plan and get_music_video_lookbook for details.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents song_id ('The song'). The description reinforces that results are scoped to a single song ('A song's music videos'), but adds no format or validity details beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific resource and an unusually precise filter: the latest draft of each shot list with no video made from it, plus lookbooks with no shot list written from them, limited to the last 30 days and sorted newest first. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list_music_video_looks or get_music_video_plan, though the opening fragment ('shot lists not made yet and lookbooks not used yet') is awkward and slightly muddies the verb+resource statement.

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 a clear downstream action ('Pick one up with get_music_video_plan or get_music_video_lookbook'), which implies this is a triage/selection tool for actionable drafts. However, it never says when NOT to use it versus near siblings such as list_music_video_looks, nor does it state prerequisites for the song_id.

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