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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that the search is global across all projects, not scoped to one — but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or case sensitivity, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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 sentence with zero filler. The matching scope (title/hook), the constraint, and the account-wide scope are all front-loaded in one pass.

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 one-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the core is present. However, with no output schema, the description should say something about what the search returns — ordering, result caps, or whether matches are fuzzy or exact — and it is silent on all of these.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does add real meaning: the query matches only title/hook text (not transcripts or notes) and is limited to 2-100 chars. The length constraint duplicates the schema's min/maxLength, but the 'title/hook' matching semantics are genuinely informative beyond 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?

The description gives a specific verb (full-text search), a resource (the account's clips), and the matched fields (title/hook), plus the scope 'across all projects'. It is clearly distinguishable from clipember_get_clip (single fetch) and clipember_search_youtube (different resource), though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the keyword-search entry point for clips, but the description gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as listing clip requests or fetching a single clip. The 'across all projects' phrase hints at broad-scope use but doesn't route the agent.

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