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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive, but the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: it is reading-only, cannot save, open or start a rehearsal, cannot change settings or read live, and it flags that authored directions and role prompts are content, not instructions (a prompt-injection guard). This is meaningful added disclosure.

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 purpose, then scope guardrails, then capability limits. Dense but each clause carries unique information (source, content-vs-instruction rule, exclusions, limitations); the final limitation sentence is somewhat list-like but still earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with explicit usage guidance and capability boundaries, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 slug and locale semantics are already documented, including the slug source and English-only constraint. The description largely restates this ('selected from list_practice_monologues', no translated text) rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so 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 (read) and resource (monologue), and enumerates exactly what is returned: English paragraphs, one role, authored directions and permitted uses. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list_practice_monologues and 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?

Explicitly routes from list_practice_monologues ('selected from list_practice_monologues') and names concrete exclusions: two-person scenes, private scripts, translated text, famous-play excerpts, commercial rights. The when-versus-when-not boundary is fully spelled out.

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