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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: the tool performs an implicit selection (keyword-based archetype picking) and returns a structured recipe plus a beat list with suggested components. That disclosure of default decision-making and return content is the valuable part. It stops short of saying whether the same brief always yields the same plan or how suggestions are ranked.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence after the colon delivers the core operation, the internal decision, and the return shape with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back — it names the recipe and the beat list with suggested components, which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. It is slightly thin on the shape of a 'recipe' or a 'beat' (fields, ordering), which matters more given the absent output schema. Overall appropriate for a read-only, three-parameter planning tool.

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 each parameter's meaning (brief, archetype override, target duration selecting nearest recipe variant) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the archetype-selection behavior and the per-beat suggestion concept. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, this sits at the baseline.

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 names a specific transformation (video brief → storyboard) and enumerates the outputs: an archetype pick, its recipe, and a per-beat component suggestion list. That is far more concrete than a restated title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling component-lookup tools, but the domain (video planning vs. component inspection) makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing of 'turn a video brief into a storyboard' — an agent can infer this is the entry point of a planning flow. The only real conditional in the text is parameter-level ('force an archetype instead of picking by keywords'). There is no statement of when to call this versus previewing or searching components first, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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