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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully states 'Reads only' plus the remake states returned. However, it omits details such as pagination behavior, authentication needs, or whether it excludes unfinished films, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by usage guidance and a read-only note. It is appropriately sized with little waste, though the sentence about in-app user interaction is less essential to invocation.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description does well to enumerate returned fields and remake states. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, but the description's 'Every shot' phrasing slightly underplays that listing is paginated by from/count.

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 the schema already documents from, count, and video_id including defaults and limits. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as shots of a finished 3D film and enumerates the fields returned. It distinguishes itself as a read-only listing via 'Reads only,' though it does not explicitly name siblings such as fix_3d_shot or keep_3d_shot.

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?

It gives concrete call contexts: when the user wants to fix/change a shot, inspect what a fix did, or check free changes remaining. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative mutation tools, leaving some ambiguity for actions that actually modify a shot.

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