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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds substantial business context beyond annotations: three pricing tiers, payment rails, minimum order rules, agreement hash/version, and the exclusivity constraint. It does not describe response format or access conditions, keeping it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the action and then lists the returned content efficiently. It is a single dense sentence with semicolon-separated details; every item is relevant, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan than a fully structured 5.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates what information the caller will receive. It covers pricing, payment rails, filters, agreement metadata, and workflow constraints. It could more explicitly mention the response shape or sibling routing, but it is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics and instead focuses on the information the tool returns.

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 names a specific verb and resource: describe Stockfilm's AI-training dataset product. It also enumerates the exact information returned, including pricing tiers, payment rails, filters, agreement metadata, and workflow. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings such as quote_training_dataset or scope_training_dataset.

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 statement that AI-training rights are sold only this way, never per clip and never exclusively, gives useful product-boundary context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus quote_training_dataset, scope_training_dataset, or get_dataset_agreement. Usage is implied rather than directly routed.

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