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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: no live reader is provided inside the chat, and an unsupported publication returns an explicit error rather than an automatic translation. It stops short of describing result size, pagination, or ordering.

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 use case, then the return contract, then the workflow step, then the exclusions. The first sentence carries a slightly redundant enumeration of use cases, but no sentence is filler and nothing important is buried.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage on the only parameter, the description does not need to explain return values. It nonetheless covers purpose, trigger conditions, exclusions, follow-up tooling, and in-chat limitations, leaving no gap an agent would need to infer.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the enum list, default and the explicit no-automatic-translation/error behavior. The description only echoes 'requested language', so the schema does the heavy lifting; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find/List two-person practice scenes') and explicitly scopes the output to 'published scenes and roles in the requested language'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by ruling out monologues and organization repertoire, naming get_practice_scene as the follow-up read tool.

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 gives concrete triggering conditions (cold reading, line memorization, selftape, no scene partner) plus explicit exclusions ('Do not use to find private audition sides, monologues or an organization's repertoire'). It also prescribes the correct workflow sequence: read with get_practice_scene before offering the app link.

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