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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are paginated and that a discovery-then-filter flow is expected, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or result volume. Output schema exists, so return shape is not a gap.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed by the routing advice. No filler or redundant restatement of parameter names.

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 an eight-parameter, one-required list tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, pagination, and sibling routing. The only shortfall is the unresolved overlap between this tool's `query` parameter and rottentomatoes_editorial_search.

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 all eight parameters are already documented with formats and defaults in the schema. The description only restates the general filtering dimensions (type, query, taxonomy/term, children) without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('List paginated Rotten Tomatoes editorial records') plus the filtering dimensions (type, query, taxonomy/term, child inclusion). It goes further by naming four sibling tools and what each covers, so an agent can place this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: rottentomatoes_editorial_types for discovering types, editorial_terms for taxonomy values, editorial_search for keyword search, editorial_section for hub pages. The one gap is that this tool itself exposes a `query` parameter while the description tells agents to use editorial_search for keyword search, leaving the overlap between the two unexplained.

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