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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still contributes non-obvious context by declaring the call is 'Free' (no credit consumption) and that it works on both drafts and submitted director videos.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return-payload list follows the action statement and every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the cost profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on an invalid or non-existent draftId.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already explains that draftId comes from autoshort_draft_video. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (a draft / submitted director video) and enumerates the content returned (scenes, narration, visual, timing, credits, warnings). It is distinguishable from siblings like autoshort_get_video and autoshort_render_draft, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical '(or a submitted director video)' hints at its scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus autoshort_get_video or autoshort_update_draft, nor any prerequisite such as 'call after autoshort_draft_video'.

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