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 clear, and the word 'List' is consistent. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior, but pagination is already documented in the page parameter schema.

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 clear sentence with no filler, and the key action/object are front-loaded. It sacrifices some context about what 'library' means, but it is not verbose.

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 read-only paginated listing with a single optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description plus schema covers what is needed to invoke it. The only gap is the ambiguous meaning of 'library' and the lack of any routing guidance against sibling list tools.

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 sole page parameter is fully described with type, 1-based indexing, 12-per-page, and default. Since the schema carries the full parameter semantics, the description needs no additional parameter explanation.

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 and resource, 'List clips in the library', so an agent can tell it is a read-only listing operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling list_* tools, but 'clips' and 'library' provide a concrete object that is not present in siblings like list_ad_generations or list_video_lab_generations.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many list_* siblings, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer that 'library clips' is the intended case.

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