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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'changes nothing and contacts no one', which usefully clarifies no outbound contact occurs. It also discloses that each Play carries its revision needed for later edits, a behavioral detail not in the annotations. Slight redundancy with readOnlyHint keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core list-vs-single behavior, then usage, then safety, then return shape. Dense and purposeful, though 'Read-only: changes nothing and contacts no one' partly repeats the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Covers purpose, mode selection, when to call, safety, and the returned fields (id, name, status, revision, audience, reviewUrl, sequenceReviewUrl), which is more than enough even though an output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the omit-to-list behavior for playId. The description restates the playId semantics but never mentions workspaceId, so it adds little beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the workspace's X Plays') and immediately disambiguates the two modes: without playId every Play, with playId that one Play. An agent can distinguish it from edit_x_play and set_x_play_status without opening any 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?

Explicitly says to use it before edit_x_play or set_x_play_status and to answer what an X Play is doing, and adds a presentation rule ('show those to the customer, never the plan JSON'). Both when-to-use and a concrete constraint are given.

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