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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description is consistent with it (no contradiction). However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation — no mention of ordering, pagination, empty results, or side effects — so it earns a neutral score rather than extra credit.

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 a single sentence of seven words with no filler or redundancy. The core action and target resource are front-loaded, making it maximally efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention whether shots are returned in a particular order (e.g., by scene or sequence), what fields are included, or how shots relate to segments — details that would help an agent use the result 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% (episode_id is documented as 'Episode id.'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter — no format specification, example values, or clarification of what constitutes an episode ID in this system.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('shots') and scope ('in an episode'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_episode (episode details), list_episode_segments (segments vs shots), and update_shot (mutation) through the noun 'shots', though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as list_episode_segments, get_episode_editor, or get_episode. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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