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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that nothing is submitted or charged, which clarifies cost side-effects, but says nothing about what the returned prompt text looks like or how the two templates differ.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the no-cost/no-submit caveat immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description does its job by saying the result is scene prompt text prepared without a generation call. The main remaining gap is guidance on the two template values, which an agent needs to pick one 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?

Only one parameter, an enum of 'beanie-loser' and 'turn-on-the-playlist', matching 'one of two' in the description. Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what either template actually contains, so an agent cannot choose between the enum values from the definition alone.

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 ('Return') and a concrete resource ('one of two original adult-character scene prompts for a PS2-inspired concept'), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from search_playlist. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling prepare_video_project, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 line 'prepares text only and never submits or charges an AI generation request' implies this is the pre-generation step, which hints at when to use it. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over prepare_video_project, nor any named alternative or exclusion.

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