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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only an 'approved' shared piece is returned and that the result carries nested pieces, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about what happens for unapproved, missing or private ids.

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 audience restriction is correctly front-loaded, but the parenthetical 'it plays a shared piece on its card from it' is tangled and redundant with the sentence that follows, costing clarity without adding information.

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 one required parameter, no output schema and rich read-only annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs. Describing the return as the piece plus the pieces it carries effectively substitutes for the missing output schema.

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 id parameter is fully documented in the schema with its <kind>/c-… format. The description only adds the framing that the id refers to a piece shared by other people, which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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?

It identifies the resource (the approved recipe of a piece someone else shared, including the pieces it carries) and explicitly contrasts with get_piece for reading a piece. The 'Cutscene's window' framing is jargon that does little work, but the core object and its composition are 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?

'To read a piece, prefer get_piece' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and the opening clause scopes this to Cutscene's window. It does not contrast with piece_for_view, the closest sibling, which is left for the agent to infer.

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