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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine domain context by defining what a template actually contains ('scenes and connections frozen with no media'), but discloses nothing operational about the listing itself such as scope limits or pagination; with an output schema present, return shape need not be restated, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact line with the resource identification front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. The trailing phrase 'to start the next film from' leans more toward flavor than actionable information, which is the only wasted weight.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is nearly complete — it names the resource, its account scope, and the entity's composition. The one gap an agent might want, its relationship to list_storyboards and the apply/save template siblings, is left unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies an account-wide, unfiltered listing.

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 clearly identifies the resource — the account's saved storyboard templates — and the name/title supply the 'list' verb, so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like list_storyboards, apply_storyboard_template, or save_storyboard_template, which is what keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling set contains closely related tools (list_storyboards, apply_storyboard_template, save_storyboard_template, delete_storyboard_template). The implied context — 'start the next film from' — hints at a retrieval-then-apply workflow but never states it, so an agent must infer the routing.

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