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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description earns credit for disclosing what the caller actually gets back – turnaround windows per format plus clock-start, rush and revision-timing rules – which no annotation or schema field conveys. It stops short of stating units (business days?), output format, or whether the answer is a table versus prose.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers the resource and the secondary content without filler. The long parenthetical format list makes it slightly run-on and largely duplicates the enum, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent both the subject matter and the full set of sub-topics the answer covers. The remaining gap is that with no output schema the description should hint at the shape and units of the response, so an agent knows what form to expect.

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?

With one optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage and an explicit enum including a default of 'all', the schema already does the work. The description restates the format set in prose ('vlog, YouTube, talking head, short-form batch, ad, corporate, course, VSL, wedding, monthly plan'), which lightly corroborates the enum but adds no new meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the exact resource (Standard Mark Studios editing turnaround windows), the axis it varies on (format), and the extra content bundled in (clock-start rules, rush speeds, revision timing). An agent can immediately tell this apart from policy-adjacent siblings like get_monthly_editing_plans or get_platform_video_specs without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is a reference lookup for turnaround times, so an agent can infer it should be called when a question about delivery speed arises. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or routing such as 'for pricing/plan scope use get_monthly_editing_plans instead'. The format list hints at scope but does not give guidance.

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