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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: the image is shown inline in ChatGPT rather than returned as a URL. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but those are covered adequately by the annotations and the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, the usage precondition front-loaded ahead of the effect, with no filler. It is tight and readable, though marginally terse given the omission of any sibling disambiguation.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations declaring safety, the description only needs to convey the precondition and the rendering effect, both of which it does. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit contrast with render_media, a minor omission for a completion-gated display 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 100%, so both required parameters (mediaId, workspaceId) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 'completed image' qualification. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('displays') and resource ('completed image media') with the scope narrowed to Sequencer images, so the agent knows it is a rendering operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling render_media, which is the main residual ambiguity.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use it only after get_media reports the Sequencer image is completed. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. render_media) or stating the 'when not to use' case, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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