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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the description adds value by disclosing that transcription may happen first, that behavior matches get_transcript, and that suggestions are free per call. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core capability, and every sentence adds value: what it returns, when it transcribes, and cost/async behavior. No filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (seconds, title, reason), cost, and async behavior. Combined with detailed parameter descriptions and annotations, it is largely complete, though it does not explicitly explain the 'processing' status flow that wait_seconds references.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds some high-level output context but does not enrich the meaning of specific parameters like count, wait_seconds, or reason_language beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Find'), a specific resource ('most shareable moments of a public video'), and concrete deliverables: start/end seconds, a hook-style title, and a reason. This clearly differentiates suggest_clips from the sibling tools get_transcript and get_chapters.

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 gives useful context by noting it transcribes the video first and shares cost/async behavior with get_transcript, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over the siblings or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than clearly routed.

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