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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it discloses that the call is free, that the bridge is a separate server the Worker cannot reach, that only the name is matched and the LUT file is never read/imported, that the exact grade is not reproduced, and it enumerates the return fields including the 'sicher' confidence flag. This is far more than the annotation carries.

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 key purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded, and most sentences carry distinct facts. There is mild redundancy in the explanation of why the Worker cannot reach the bridge, but it is dense and information-bearing rather than padded.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the returned fields (look, reason, alternatives, sicher) and explaining the confidence semantics, plus the cross-server dependency and the apply step. An agent has everything needed to chain and invoke it 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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the lut value is only matched as a name (not read as a file), which changes how an agent should source and treat it.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Suggest a FilmLab grade look from a Resolve LUT name or path.' It clearly distinguishes itself from near-siblings (lab_grade, lab_grade_suggest, lab_look_match) by being the Resolve-LUT-name-driven suggester, and scopes exactly what input it consumes.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering: call resolve_node_graph_lesen first on the separate bridge, pass its lut field here, and only apply via lab_grade once the user agrees. It names the prerequisite tool, the alternative/next step, and the user-consent gate — nothing is left to inference.

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