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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state and is not repeat-safe. The description usefully adds negative scope by ruling out encoding retries and transcoder restarts, but it says nothing about what the recheck actually enqueues, whether it costs quota, what permissions are required, or how long results take to appear — notable gaps for a non-idempotent action.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then immediately the exclusion. No filler or restated field names.

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?

The scope statements are good, but for a three-parameter, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the episode_id case and about what the call returns or triggers. Adequate as a minimum, not complete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it adds essentially nothing: film_id and slot are only gestured at via "main/HDR/audio file," with no mapping of slot values to picture_sdr/picture_hdr/stereo/surround/atmos. The optional episode_id is entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent with no guidance on when to target an episode versus a film.

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 ("Recheck") against a specific resource ("an uploaded main/HDR/audio file whose inspection failed or is overdue"), which is far more precise than the name alone. It implicitly separates itself from encoding/transcoder operations, but never names the nearest siblings (get_film_processing, get_film_file_upload_status, retry_film_protection_change) so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition (inspection failed or is overdue) and an explicit exclusion ("does not retry encoding or restart the transcoder"), which prevents the most likely misuse. It stops short of naming which alternative tool to call instead when the problem is encoding rather than inspection.

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