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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the scope of the returned knowledge base, including pricing policy and the quotes/calls/deposits workflow, which tells the agent this is a factual lookup the studio controls.

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 what is returned and followed by when to call it — the right order. The middle enumeration is a long run-on list, but every item is a real content category rather than filler.

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 carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by enumerating the knowledge areas, including the quote/call/deposit mechanics. With zero required parameters and full schema coverage on the one optional filter, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum is fully documented in the schema, including the 'leave empty for everything' default. The description never mentions the topic filter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — the 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 and a fully enumerated resource set: what the studio makes, prices, timelines, service area, languages, work examples, and how quotes/calls/deposits work. An agent can immediately separate this from siblings such as plan_a_video or book_call, which act rather than inform.

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 explicit triggers — 'when the user asks what the studio does or costs' — and a sequencing cue, 'before planning a video with VIDEO DEPT', which implicitly routes to plan_a_video. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusion conditions, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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