run_precheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states the tool is free/no-charge, lists what it does and does not check, explains that prompt-conflict shots cannot be satisfied by any correct image, and warns that retrying will cause repeated rejections and charges. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 description is long but well-structured with numbered categories and clear warnings; the front-loaded summary and explicit negatives are useful. Minor redundancy (free/no-charge stated twice; recommendation repeated) prevents a perfect score.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input context, cost behavior, exclusions, and recommended follow-up actions. The only notable gap is that it never specifies the response/return structure, though the functional output ('which shots will be rejected' plus prompts to fix) is implied strongly enough.

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 is one parameter, episode_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, but the description never mentions episode_id or how to provide it. The agent can infer an episode identifier from the parameter name and schema, but the description adds no semantic meaning or usage detail beyond the raw 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?

The description identifies a concrete verb and resource (run a precheck before rendering) and enumerates the exact categories it inspects (portrait/voice authorization, high-risk image words, voice-over coverage, prompt conflicts). It also differentiates itself from generate_frames/generate_videos and get_health_report, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

It explicitly recommends calling before generate_frames/generate_videos and explains why (avoid wasted charges/rejections). It also gives an explicit exclusion ('does not replace get_health_report') and tells the agent how to react to prompt-conflict findings: fix the storyboard rather than retry.

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