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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'public published' constraint, which clarifies that private or unpublished generations are not accessible, though it does not disclose error behavior or return details beyond what the output schema provides.

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 front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does and how the target is identified. No filler or redundant explanation, so every word 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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, safety annotations, and an output schema present, the definition covers the essential call contract. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from get_generation_publication, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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%, so the clipId parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description only repeats 'by clip id' and adds no additional semantic information beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one public published generation'), and the identifier ('clip id'), making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling get_generation_publication, but the resource phrase and retrieval-by-clip-id scope are clear enough for basic selection.

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 parameter description gives clear sourcing context: the clipId comes from a /p/{id} URL or list_public_generations, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a simple public read.

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