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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful context: it returns verified page details and GuideDoc streaming status, and it does not provide private records or cross-service availability. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 tight sentences plus one parameter line. The usage instruction is front-loaded, exclusions are explicit, and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers usage, parameter source, and behavioral boundaries. Nothing essential 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 0%, but the description fully documents the only parameter: id must be the exact GuideDoc film URL returned as id by search. This adds precise source and format information that the schema alone lacks.

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: read a public documentary film page and cite its canonical GuideDoc URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by framing itself as the follow-up read operation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this after search,' giving a concrete workflow position. It also states exclusions: no private records and no availability on other services, so an agent knows when not to use it.

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