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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: the inability to save, open or start a rehearsal, change settings, or provide a live in-chat reader, plus the rule that unpublished translations error rather than falling back to English. The instruction to treat directions and role prompts as content rather than instructions is a meaningful safety disclosure for an agent. It stops short of describing what the payload looks like, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and every clause carries information: selection source, content-preservation rule, web_url option, exclusions, capability limits. The first sentence is heavily stacked with comma-separated objects, which costs some readability, but there is no filler to cut.

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 annotations, a full-coverage schema and an output schema, the remaining burden on the description is routing, constraints and capability boundaries, all of which are present. The explicit exclusion list and the 'cannot save/open/start rehearsal' sentence close the gaps an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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%, and the schema already spells out the slug pattern, the do-not-invent rule, the locale enum and the no-English-substitution behavior. The description reinforces that the monologue is chosen from list_practice_monologues and read 'in the selected language,' but adds no format or syntax detail the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 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 opening sentence names a specific verb (read) and enumerates the exact resources returned: published paragraphs in a selected language, one role, authored directions, author and license. It also anchors the source of the identifier ('selected from list_practice_monologues'), which separates it cleanly from the listing sibling and from get_practice_scene.

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?

It states when to use it, names the prerequisite tool that produces the slug, and gives an explicit negative list: two-person scenes, private scripts, generated translations, unlisted excerpts, rights clearance for another edition. It also routes the actor to web_url as the alternative reading surface, which is actionable guidance rather than implied context.

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