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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, so the bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: links can expire (hence 'fresh'), footage requires a free account for free prompts and Unlimited otherwise, and nightmarquee_sign_in must be run first. It does not detail return shape, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and follows with condition, then prerequisite, in a compact set of sentences. The 'save each file into public/' instruction is operationally useful rather than filler, though the middle sentence is slightly abrupt.

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-only fetch tool with an output schema, the agent has everything: what it returns, when to prefer it over get_prompt, the auth prerequisite, and the required post-fetch action. Nothing needed to invoke or reason about it correctly 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema's 'Prompt slug, as passed to nightmarquee_get_prompt' already fully documents it. The description reinforces that the same slug is reused, but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema – baseline 3.

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 (get) and resource (fresh download links for a demo's footage) and scopes it ('every clip, without fetching the prompt again'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling nightmarquee_get_prompt, whose links it supersedes.

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?

Explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use it when the links from nightmarquee_get_prompt have expired.' It names the alternative that produces the links and the triggering condition, plus the downstream instruction to save files into public/ before building.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description goes further by disclosing that short-lived per-clip links may be returned and that each must be saved into public/ under its name before building. It also discloses the account/entitlement requirement per prompt tier, which is genuinely useful auth context.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first clause, and no filler. The footage/account sentence is long and packs three ideas together, slightly reducing scannability.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, and the description still usefully flags the conditional footage links and the pre-build save step. Entitlement rules for each prompt tier are covered; what remains thin is guidance on how the target-tool dialect choice affects output.

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%, including the slug example, the tool enum default logic, and the brand swap note, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no further parameter-level detail (e.g., brand length limit, slug format), so the 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 ('Fetch the full build prompt for one NightMarquee design') plus the tuning dimension ('tuned for the target tool'). This distinguishes it from nightmarquee_search_prompts (discovery) and nightmarquee_get_footage (asset download) without needing to open schemas.

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 explicit conditional guidance: footage links appear only when the account may download the demo's footage, free prompts need no account, Unlimited prompts need Unlimited and route to nightmarquee_sign_in. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct contrast against nightmarquee_search_prompts/get_footage, so not a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations and the output schema already provide, but it does not contradict them.

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?

A single dense sentence with an action, resource, and downstream integration. The inline list of categories is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it supports quick at-a-glance understanding without wasting words.

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 an optional-parameter, read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It could clarify what happens on an empty search, but the schema and output schema mitigate that gap.

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%, with descriptions for query, category, tier, and limit including enums, defaults, and auth implications. The description merely echoes the parameter vocabulary without adding new semantic detail, so the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Search the NightMarquee catalog of website and mobile app build prompts') and names the search dimensions (keyword, category, tier). It also differentiates itself from the sibling retrieval tool by stating that results are slugs, taglines, and demo links to feed into nightmarquee_get_prompt.

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 workflow is clear: search first, then pass a matching slug to nightmarquee_get_prompt. This implicitly tells the agent when to select this tool versus the retrieval sibling, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or spell out exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: it requires an external browser approval, shows a short code, and must be run twice. This is valuable interactive context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) only hint at. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the step-by-step flow is conveyed efficiently. 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?

The description covers the interactive nature, the need for a second run, and the purpose. With an output schema present and no parameters, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention prerequisites (e.g., already having a NightMarquee account) but that is minor.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the sign-in flow but not parameter-level semantics since none exist.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Connect a NightMarquee account' and explains the benefit ('so Unlimited prompts work here'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings (search, get, whoami) by describing a sign-in flow, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 description provides clear usage context: it is needed for Unlimited prompts and involves a two-step process ('Run it again after approving'). It implicitly tells the agent when to use it (when sign-in is needed), though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives. Since no sibling does sign-in, this is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'what it can reach,' providing context about the output scope without contradicting annotations. This adds value beyond the structured hints.

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?

A single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core function. No wasted words; it gets straight to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema provided, annotations cover side effects), the description is fully sufficient. An agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics since there are none, and the output schema handles return details.

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 the tool's function: showing the connected NightMarquee account and its accessible resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sign_in (connection) and search/get_prompt (prompt operations), so an agent can easily identify when this is the right tool.

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 context is clear: use this when you need to verify which account is connected or what it can access. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, so no exclusions are needed.

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