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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond the schema – that failed shots are included in the result – but says nothing about progress format, polling frequency, or what happens for an unknown runId.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and names the return content. No waste, though it is terse enough that it omits context an agent would want.

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, so the description does useful work by stating what is returned (progress, media IDs, failed shots), and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no usage or sibling routing guidance, the definition is only minimally adequate for a two-required-param status 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 0% for both required parameters (workspaceId, runId), and the description does not mention either parameter or add any meaning such as ID format or scope. With two undocumented required params, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') plus the resource ('production generation progress and output media IDs') and even names part of the payload ('failed shots'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_production_template or check_asset_status.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided: it does not say to poll this after create_production/generate_shot_video, nor when to prefer it over check_asset_status. Usage is only implied by the name.

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