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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavior: unknown alignment never matches an on-beat filter. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination via limit/cursor, result ordering, or what a returned 'offset' means, leaving gaps annotations cannot cover.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the edge-case rule second. Slight terseness costs a point since the density leaves semantics ambiguous rather than efficiently compressed.

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?

Against 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, a nested filter object, and only an output schema to lean on, this description is far too thin — an agent cannot confidently construct a filters object or understand what cursor/limit do. It covers the beat-offset angle but not the bulk of the tool's surface.

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 0% across 9 parameters including a nested 'filters' object, so the description must compensate — but it only implicitly touches on_beat/beat_kind and tolerance_ms, and says nothing about label, limit, cursor, moment_type, within_role, or any of the nine nested filter fields. This leaves most parameter meaning undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb + resource: searching 'measured/annotated timeline moments' and testing offset from beats/downbeats. This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like search_scenes and search_videos, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 implies a narrow use case (beat/grid alignment queries) but never states when to pick this over sibling search tools such as search_scenes, pattern_search, or beat_grid, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer applicability from the phrase alone.

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