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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the owner-only permission boundary and the partial-availability failure path returning `forbidden` with `extensions.reason=no_ofrecido`. It stops short of discussing pagination or volume limits.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then constraints and error path, in one dense paragraph with no filler. It is jargon-heavy — `elegida`, `ficha`, `loDijo`, `frescura` — but each token carries information an agent needs to interpret results.

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 only two required parameters, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it enumerates each returned field and the `frescura` enum values. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 50%: `scene_index` is already documented as 0-based in the schema and `project_id` is undocumented in both places. The description repeats the 0-based/VBP convention and reinforces that only one scene is queried, but adds no new meaning for `project_id`. Baseline 3 fits.

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 specific verb and resource ('Lists the takes of ONE scene') and immediately defines what a take is (recordings the creator made reading the scene's script). The capitalized 'ONE' plus the definition make it unambiguous against siblings like list_material or list_versions.

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 clear preconditions — 'Only the piece's owner' and '$0' — plus the single-scene scope, so an agent knows the access requirement and cost up front. It does not name an alternative for selecting a take (e.g. choose_take), so there is context but no explicit when-to-use routing.

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