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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing pagination semantics, the ownership restriction, the speaker-for-whole-recording scope, and the `$0` cost. It does not describe rate limits or error conditions beyond the wordMap reasons, so it is not a full 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?

It is a single front-loaded block that opens with the resource and then unpacks the payload, with no filler sentences. The heavy parenthetical stacking (`startSec`, `endSec`, `ficha_pending`, `hearing_does_not_assert`) makes it dense and slows scanning, which keeps it from 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so: record fields, `ficha` contents, speaker attribution, the phrase map with its field names, pagination handle, and the reason codes that explain an absent word map. For a read tool of this complexity, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds some linkage by tying `phrase_offset` to the response field `hearing.nextPhraseOffset`, which is a small but genuine semantic gain over the schema text.

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 whole record of ONE file of the material library" states a specific resource and scope (one file, full record), and the enumeration of what is returned (kind, size, duration, stage, ficha, speaker, phrases) makes the operation concrete. It does not name a sibling such as list_material, so differentiation is left implicit, which keeps it below 5.

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 tells the agent how to page (pass the previous answer's `nextPhraseOffset` as `phrase_offset`) and that only the credential's own files are visible, which are real usage constraints. It never says when to call this instead of `list_material` or the other listing siblings, so the alternatives guidance is only implied.

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