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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 1s keyframe sampling interval, the exact boundary of what is excluded, and the fallback that 'an unknown slug returns the closest matches' rather than erroring. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a single-record lookup that is minor.

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 the core purpose and exclusions first, then acquisition guidance. The long parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place by advertising the payload contents. Slightly heavy for a two-sentence tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering scope, exclusions, slug sourcing, and fallback behavior, an agent has everything needed to select 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by documenting the origin of the slug value (search_shots / get_related_shots) and the unknown-slug behavior, which the schema does not state. It adds nothing about response_format, but the schema's own enum description already covers that.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('Fetch the full detail for one shot by its slug') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains (app, platform, URLs, keyframes, AI description fields). It explicitly carves out what it does NOT return, cleanly separating it from 60fps_get_motion_breakdown and 60fps_get_motion_code.

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?

States the use case ('judge whether a shot fits or to describe it to the user'), names the two sibling tools to use for the missing data, and tells the agent where slugs come from (60fps_search_shots or 60fps_get_related_shots). When-to-use and alternatives are both explicit.

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