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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that results are summarized and returned in story order, and that pagination is available via offset.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the paging/verification guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, and paging adequately. The main gap is the absence of any textual explanation for the required projectId parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the offset parameter's purpose ('Page with offset to inspect older scenes'), but says nothing about the required projectId parameter. An agent must infer its meaning from the name and UUID format alone.

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 (Read) and resource (approved scene summaries) with an ordering constraint (story order). It is distinct from sibling tools like record_approved_scene or search_story_canon, but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to reinforce the boundary.

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 a clear use case: 'Page with offset to inspect older scenes or verify a scene number before saving.' This tells the agent when to use the offset parameter, but does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly compare it to any sibling tool.

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