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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description is consistent with those. It adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the order in which the storyboard must be written, billing limits Kleo enforces, the fact that the same storyboard serves both looks, and the once-per-conversation guidance.

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 long but dense: each clause contributes operational detail such as ordering, billing limits, one worked example, and once-per-conversation usage. The key workflow instruction is front-loaded as 'Step 2 (recommended)', making it easy for an agent to parse the most important guidance first.

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 guide with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the returned guide contains, the order in which to write it, the limits Kleo enforces, and the two visual styles. It also anchors the tool in the workflow relative to kleo_create_video, so an agent has everything needed to call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context for the `style` parameter by explaining the two looks and that the same storyboard serves both the film and animatic. It does not add syntax details for `format`, `template`, or `duration_s`, but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Returns how to write a storyboard Kleo renders') and clearly distinguishes this guide from kleo_create_video by positioning it as Step 2. The enumerated content scope (direction, scene/shot shapes, limits, worked example) removes any ambiguity about its role.

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 explicitly states when to call it ('Step 2 (recommended)', 'Call it once per conversation, before kleo_create_video') and explains the consequence of not using it ('Kleo plans a more generic one from the prompt'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead, but the workflow placement is clear and actionable.

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