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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: it is text-only and cuts no video or audio, and it discloses what the response contains (start/end in seconds and clock times, hook, text, rank score, reasons).

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then prerequisites, then optional parameters, then return shape, then the text-only caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter defaults repeat the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns, yet it does so briefly and accurately. Combined with the upstream dependency on transcribe_media, the conditional library_id, and the text-only guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 carries defaults, min/max bounds and the conditional library_id rule, so the description's restatement of count 1-5 (default 3), min_seconds (30) and max_seconds (60) is largely duplicative. The one genuine addition is the framing that library_id is conditional on transcribe_media's output, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (suggest short clips from a transcript) and immediately disambiguates from the sibling tools: it consumes transcript_id produced by transcribe_media, and it explicitly does not cut media. An agent can distinguish it from search_transcripts or transcribe_media without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when the user wants the best short stretches of a talk to cut as clips') plus concrete user phrasings like 'find the best 60 seconds'. It also names the prerequisite chain (transcript_id from transcribe_media, library_id only if returned). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, so it lands just below the top.

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