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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call acts only on the explicit project_id, does not rank by upload order, does not silently shortlist, and explicitly allows leaving weak/redundant assets unused. It also mentions dynamically built labeled pages and returned evidence_ids. It doesn't detail side effects or performance, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 dense and somewhat disorganized, with unusual capitalization and run-on phrasing ('YOUR OWN EYES on SEVERAL uploaded clips/images in ONE story-wide comparison'). It front-loads the project-scope constraint but buries the key usage guidance mid-paragraph. It could be tightened into clearer, shorter sentences 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 comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operational needs: what to pass, how it behaves, and what to do with the result ('use source_asset_key + the returned evidence_ids in sequence_map'). It doesn't explain the 'question' or 'samples_per_asset' parameters, which is a gap, but the core workflow is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains asset_keys ('Pass every relevant exact storage_key together') and project_id ('Required immutable scope... Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state'), but it does not explain the 'question' or 'samples_per_asset' parameters. The description adds meaning for two of four parameters, which is partial compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Compare') and resource ('uploaded media'), and clarifies it operates on multiple assets at once. It distinguishes itself from serial look_at_asset calls, though the name 'compare_uploaded_media' is somewhat generic and the description's unusual formatting makes the core purpose less crisp than it could be.

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 description explicitly says to use this instead of serial look_at_asset calls when choosing/order-casting a reel, montage, B-roll library, or multi-clip story. It also states what it does not do ('does not rank by upload order, does not silently shortlist'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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