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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real context beyond them: the cost model ('Costs no credits') and a conditional behavior ('The latest episode's script is included when it is waiting for approval'). That conditional inclusion is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource and return payload front-loaded and the cost/condition caveats trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present the return shape need not be explained, yet the description still characterizes the payload and the approval-dependent script, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It omits what happens for an invalid or missing story id, a minor gap for a read 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% for the single 'story' parameter and it already documents the provenance of the id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource ('One story series') and enumerates exactly what it returns (story so far, every episode with fields), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_stories by scope. It never explicitly names list_stories or get_content_plan as the alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 getter shape and by the schema's note that the id comes 'from list_stories or create_story', but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The note that the latest script appears only 'when it is waiting for approval' hints at a useful scenario without framing it as guidance.

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