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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: large timelines return a compact index instead of truncated JSON, aliases are accepted without retry, and compact=true returns counts, caption state, and duplicate assets. This goes beyond the 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?

The description is dense but well-structured, starting with the scoping constraint and then covering return format, large-timeline behavior, and parameter usage. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains what is returned (current EDL JSON, version, compact index) and how to request specific sections. It covers all five parameters effectively, and for a read-only tool with clear annotations, the information is sufficient for an agent to call 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 coverage is only 20%, so the description carries the burden. It explains how to use sections (with examples), paginate with offset/limit, and the meaning of compact. It also documents aliases for section names, which is not in the schema. This compensates well 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 clearly states the tool reads the edit decision list, returns current EDL JSON and version, and is project-scoped. It explicitly names the resource and the verb, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It distinguishes itself as a read-only EDL accessor, even without naming a specific sibling.

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 implies when to use the tool (to read the EDL) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_editorial_map or get_shots. It provides usage context like pagination and aliases, but no direct guidance on choosing this over alternatives.

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