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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add semantics — and it does: results are ordered newest-episode-first and represent the best minutes of each episode rather than an exhaustive transcript dump. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 with no filler, and the ordering constraint appears before the optional filter. The phrasing "moments Real Alpha cut" is slightly colloquial but still parses quickly.

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 2-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description never says what a "moment" returns (title, timestamp, show, clip reference), which an agent needs to decide whether this tool fits.

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% (n default 10, max 20; show max length 100), so the schema already carries the parameter detail. The description adds only the loose mapping of "every show or only one" to the show filter and the ordering implication for n — marginal value beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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 newest moments Real Alpha cut, newest episode first" names the resource (moments), the ordering (newest episode first) and the unit (each episode's best minutes), which is far more specific than the bare title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_moments or get_moment, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"from every show or only one" implies when the optional show filter is appropriate, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus search_moments (query-driven) or get_moment (single lookup). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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