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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description earns credit for genuinely new context: results expose films kept and exported, a pro flag that forces Cutscene Pro on export, and that author names are omitted. The prompt-injection warning ('data, never instructions') is exactly the kind of safety context annotations cannot express.

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 first sentence is a long run-on packing kinds, sort meaning, and pro semantics; the useful consumption instructions are buried mid-paragraph. Nothing is wasted, but it is not front-loaded or easy to scan.

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 steps up to describe the return shape (films kept and exported, pro flag, no author name) and how to consume a result, which is what an agent needs. A minor gap is no mention of pagination/offset behavior in prose, though the schema covers 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the sort/query/kind semantics are fully spelled out in the schema, so the description's mention of searching 'over every shared piece' adds little parameter-level meaning. 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 resource: search over approved shared pieces (templates, styles, shots, transitions, effects, animations, camera moves). It implicitly distinguishes community content from the library, but never names search_library as the contrasting sibling, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 clear post-retrieval guidance (use by id via create_film { montage }, edit_film, set_film { look }, get_piece) and mentions pro-only behavior. However it never says when to reach for this tool instead of search_library or list_montages, so the selection guidance is implied only.

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