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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses cost ("Free"), the status state machine (none, saved, reviewed, confirmed) and the downstream consequence of that status for episode creation and quoting. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations, though pagination/size limits on a full season of episodes is not mentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload, then the workflow relevance; nothing is throwaway. It is dense — the long parenthetical inventory is a bit heavy — but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned structure (plan fields, hash, status, season review checklist, price, AI review). Combined with the workflow note, an agent knows what it will get and what to do with it.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage and already documents that it comes from autoshort_list_series; the description adds no format, validity or scoping detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the meaning.

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 ("Read the season plan of one of your series") and enumerates exactly what the plan contains: logline, genre, narrator voice, cast, episodes, hash, status and review. This clearly separates it from siblings like autoshort_list_series or autoshort_save_season_plan, which either enumerate series or write the plan.

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 concrete use case ("use this to see where the plan stands and which episodes can be quoted") and explains the gating rule that an episode can only be made from a reviewed and confirmed plan. It does not name an explicit alternative tool to use instead when the plan is not ready, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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