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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost (1 credit per call) and conceptually what it computes, but says nothing about return format, error behavior, or the effect of defaults (takes, seconds, shot_type). For a non-destructive planner this is adequate but thin.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The marketing-flavored 'Great for planning short films and ads' is mildly expendable but still conveys domain fit.

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 and zero parameter documentation, so the description should say more. It conceptually names the computed results, which is helpful, but omits input-shape detail and how defaults affect the schedule, leaving an agent to infer from the schema.

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 implies 'scenes' and 'setup time per shot' but does not explain the nested scene fields (takes, seconds, shot_type defaults/ranges) or the setup_minutes_per_shot default, leaving the structured data to do nearly all the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Build a shot list from a scene list') and enumerates the concrete outputs (shot numbers, runtime, setup time, day totals). It is clearly distinguishable from other tools in the set, though no sibling is named because none is obviously adjacent.

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 offers soft context ('Great for planning short films and ads') but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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