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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the phrase 'so a passenger following along sees the scene reached' loosely accounts for the side effect of advancing play progress. However, that side effect is only implied, and nothing is said about behavior when the cue or slug doesn't exist.

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 tight clauses: the return payload first, then the play_id instruction. No filler, though the phrase 'from a Plot Speaks adventure' spends words on flavor that could have carried error or prerequisite 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 usefully names what comes back (scene text and narrator notes), and the optional play_id is explained. Missing only failure/edge-case behavior for an invalid cue id or slug.

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 cue format (S1, S3b) and slug are already documented. The description adds the rationale for play_id ('so a passenger following along sees the scene reached'), slightly exceeding the schema's 'play id from start_story', but slug and cue get no added meaning.

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 and resource (returns a cue) and enumerates the payload: scene text plus narrator notes. It doesn't name any sibling tool or contrast with adjacent flow steps like choose or game_board, 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 sentence about play_id implies the tool is called while a group follows along in a play, which hints at context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to an alternative tool for fetching scene content.

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