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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world. The description goes beyond them by disclosing result ordering (newest first; best match first when a topic is given) and that the response includes the person's identity plus a link to their Real Alpha page.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and the default ordering, followed by return-content context. The phrasing 'interviews Real Alpha cut' is slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden and does state what comes back (their moments, who they are, a link to their page). It stops short of describing moment shape or what happens when a name is ambiguous or unmatched.

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% with all three parameters documented (including the topic enumeration and limit bounds), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at the optional topic filter and adds nothing about person resolution or the limit.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: return the moments where one named person speaks in Real Alpha interview footage, optionally filtered by topic. It is clearly person-centric, which separates it from search_moments and latest_moments, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implies usage ('what one person said', 'only those on a topic') so an agent can infer the entry point, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not route to alternatives like transcript_excerpt or answers_to.

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