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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the returned stories are pre-authored candidates only, and nothing asserts they are true of any organization until decided against data. This is a valuable caveat that shapes how an agent should interpret results. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, but the first sentence essentially repeats the title verbatim ('Pre-authored data-story tracks — the possibility space'). The rest is dense and useful, though the filter list in shorthand is somewhat awkward. Overall it is concise but includes avoidable redundancy.

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?

Given the readOnly annotation, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics well: what a story track contains, that results are candidates only, and the available filters. It could be more explicit about behavior when no filters are provided, but no critical operational gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slug, metric, persona, and problem. The description merely lists the same filters in shorthand ('?persona / ?problem / ?metric / ?slug filter') without adding semantics like combination behavior or default results when no filters are supplied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as pre-authored data-story tracks and clarifies what they contain: the SB7 argument, acts/beats, branches, decision, and required data. It also differentiates the tool's scope by emphasizing that these are candidates, not validated truths. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'list,' relying on the tool name to supply it.

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 implied by the filter list and the 'candidates only' caveat: an agent would use this to explore possible story tracks before testing them against data. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_insight_cards or get_scene_templates, and no alternatives are named.

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