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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations: results are ranked and paginated, and the id can be fed to get_section. Default page size and paging mechanics are left to the 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and examples embedded inline. The follow-up routing is placed at the end where it belongs.

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 7-param, no-output-schema search tool this covers purpose, filters, ranking/pagination and next step. It could say more about result shape or how ranking interacts with filters, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The description names five of the seven parameters (free-text query, style, kind, tier, tags) and hints at ordering and paging, adding meaning beyond the 71% schema coverage — notably that ranking is relevance-based rather than supplied explicitly. Limit/offset specifics remain with the schema.

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 (search) and resource (StudioMotion library) with scope — free text plus optional filters. It is clearly distinguishable from list_sections (browse) and get_section (retrieve by id), which the description explicitly references.

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 concrete query examples ('scroll parallax hero', 'magnetic button') and names the follow-up path: use get_section with a returned id for code. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_sections for browsing, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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