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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing what is returned – source types plus their rights-attestation status – which is not derivable from annotations or schema. It omits pagination/ordering behavior.

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; the resource is named first and the returned data is appended as a qualifier. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value – and it does, naming the sources and the rights-attestation status field. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile and a single simple parameter, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries some burden. 'A given Autopilot automation' implies the automationId's role, but the description never states the expected identifier format (UUID) or where to source it (e.g., from list_autopilot_automations).

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 ('List') plus the exact resource ('video sources ... feeding a given Autopilot automation') and enumerates the source kinds (YouTube channel/search/manual list). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like clipember_list_autopilot_automations and clipember_list_autopilot_proposals.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping phrase 'feeding a given Autopilot automation' – an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting what feeds one automation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to obtain the automationId, and no exclusions or alternatives named.

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