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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds genuine context: the document is owned and persisted, historical snapshots remain inspectable (no purging), and current state is elsewhere — useful expectations about what comes back.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the historical-vs-current caveat follows. Phrasing like 'with actual options, scenes and scripts' is slightly awkward but carries information rather than filler.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover safety behavior. The remaining gap is identifier semantics relative to a crowded family of *_get siblings, which an agent needs in order to pass the right id.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden, yet it never says whether 'id' is the document id, a journey id, or a version id despite many sibling tools also taking ids. Only the vague 'owned saved concept/storyboard document' phrasing hints at the referent.

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 a specific resource (an owned saved concept/storyboard document), and enumerates the payload (options, scenes, scripts). It is distinguishable from journeys_get-type siblings via the 'owned saved document' framing, though no sibling is named.

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 second sentence implies when to use it: historical documents remain retrievable here, while current selections live in 'the journey artifacts'. That is implied routing rather than an explicit 'use X instead', and 'journey artifacts' is not a tool name an agent can act on directly.

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