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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the short form (leading *, `examples` key alignment) and the expected volume of sounds ('often several dozen'), which pre-empts surprise. It says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown or malformed prj_ id, so it stays at 3.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the default short-form content before the flag variants. However the opening sentence is overstuffed with parenthetical asides ('a leading * marks an example nobody wrote yet') that are hard to parse on first read.

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 values, and it does so only partially: it names the sections but not the film's own attributes or the error case for a bad id. Adequate for a read-only three-parameter tool, but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns a point by explaining what the flags select in terms of result content: sounds yields each sound 'with its moment and the id set_sound takes', full yields 'the whole document'. That cross-references a sibling tool in a way the schema alone does not.

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 concretely states what a read returns: shots in order, their words, transitions, music, manually placed sounds, plus how many the shots bring. That is a specific verb+resource rather than a restatement of the title. It does not differentiate this tool from the many near-siblings (show_film, preview_film, film_for_view, check_film, get_piece), which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

The two conditional clauses ('With sounds: true', 'With full: true') describe how to widen the response, not when to choose this tool over show_film, preview_film, film_for_view or check_film. There is no exclusion or alternative-selection guidance at all.

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