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 real value by confirming "It sends nothing" and by describing the surrounding workflow (the agent writes the draft from the outline, which then travels to Nikita with the brief via send_brief). The only gap is return shape, which is unstated but partly implied by the outline contents listed.

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?

The what-it-returns detail is front-loaded and the when-to-use and workflow notes follow in a logical order; nearly every clause carries information. The workflow sentence is slightly run-on ("and it goes to Nikita with the brief"), but the trailing "It sends nothing" earns its place as reassurance for a read-only tool.

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 a two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, downstream handoff and the structure of what comes back. It omits required permissions or any error conditions, but nothing suggests those are relevant for an idempotent, closed-world read.

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 video_type and length_seconds are fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and the 5–3600 second bounds. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Returns an outline for the script of a video") and enumerates the outline's contents — parts in order, timing, word counts, two-column format, writing rules. This is far more than a restatement of the title, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling plan_a_video, so an agent must infer the division of labour.

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?

"Use it when the user wants a script draft" gives a clear triggering condition, and the follow-on sentence routes the agent to send_brief for the handoff downstream. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it — notably it doesn't distinguish itself from plan_a_video, which shares the same video_type enum.

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