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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the return format 'timestamps plus text' — material because there is no output schema. It omits pagination behaviour and whether cue identifiers are included, which are the remaining behavioural unknowns.

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 that states the resource, the result shape, and the motivating use case 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?

For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what comes back. Ordering, default paging behaviour, and the distinction from lunara_get_srt remain unaddressed, keeping it short of fully 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 100%, so jobId, limit with its 500 cap, and offset are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is the baseline rather than an improvement.

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?

Specific verb (return) plus resource (subtitle cues for a job) with the notable extra that it names the output shape, timestamps plus text. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as lunara_get_srt, which plausibly returns the same content in a different form.

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 trailing clause 'so you can inspect or reference individual lines before proposing edits' implies a workflow position (read-before-write), which is useful. But it never states when to prefer this over lunara_get_srt or the edit/rewrite tools, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites such as the job needing to be completed.

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