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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: it says the result is one answer covering many checks and ends with `next`, an ordered action list.

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 description is informative but front-loads a rhetorical phrase and then packs roughly a dozen checks into one very long sentence. The usage instruction at the end is valuable, but the overall structure is not scannable.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives a thorough sense of what is checked and that the response ends with a `next` action list. It is close to complete, though it could name the analogous piece-level tool or clarify the return shape further.

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 the parameters (name, uhd, formats) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable 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?

The description clearly states this is a pre-export validation of a film, enumerating concrete checks and calling the film the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling check_piece tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear usage instruction: run it before telling the user the film is done and ready to export. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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