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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this is an asynchronous, staged operation you poll, and results only materialize "once done" as rendered clips with scores and download links. It stops short of polling cadence or terminal-state guidance.

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 that packs the verb, resource, origin link, and return content without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully characterizes the return value (stage progress, then clips with scores and links), and annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete for a 1-param read tool, though polling behavior and terminal/error states are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0% – requestId has only a uuid pattern and no prose description. The description partially compensates by implying requestId is the identifier returned by clipember_create_clip_request, but it adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that link.

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 (poll/get) and resource (a clip request's status, including stage progress and rendered clips). It ties the resource to its origin tool (clipember_create_clip_request), making the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like list_clip_requests or get_clip, so not a 5.

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?

"Poll a clip request created by clipember_create_clip_request" gives clear context: use after creating a request to track its progress. It implies repeated polling usage but names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., list_clip_requests for enumeration, delete for cleanup).

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