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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds a mild scoping cue ('your') but does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, or the team: context option. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it could have incorporated the context parameter or a brief usage hint without becoming bloated.

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 simple list tool with strong read-only annotations and one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, 'your scenes' could misleadingly imply personal-only scope, while the schema permits 'team:<id>', and no output/return behavior is described due to the lack of an 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the only parameter, context. The description adds nothing about this parameter, but for a single fully documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('your scenes'), and the possessive 'your' signals user scope. It distinguishes the tool by its resource type, and no scene-specific sibling alternatives appear to create ambiguity.

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 intended use is implied by 'List your scenes' — an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving scenes. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the context parameter's role in selecting personal vs. team scenes.

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