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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. It adds useful scope context beyond annotations: historical versions remain readable, the current source is tied to the journey artifact, and the result does not certify downstream video/placement readiness.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core read purpose in the first sentence. The remaining sentences add versioning and non-certification caveats without excessive length, though the wording is occasionally cryptic.

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 and annotations present, the description does not need to explain return values or safety traits. However, it leaves important gaps for an agent: no when-to-use guidance versus siblings and no clarification of the required `id` parameter's meaning.

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 0% for the single required `id` parameter, and the description does not explain what that ID represents. The UUID pattern in the schema indicates format only, leaving ambiguity about whether `id` is an overlay draft ID, journey artifact ID, or something else.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Read an owned ... overlay draft, scene identities and sample/default values." It is clear enough to identify the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as journey_authoring_get, and the phrase "immutable editable overlay draft" is internally confusing.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus journey_authoring_get or journeys_get. The caveat about alpha video, MP4 readiness, and placement tracking is a limitation, not a usage rule or alternative-selection criterion.

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