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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the ALLOW/REFUSE outcome vocabulary with an accompanying reason, plus a deny-by-default policy that tells the agent how to interpret a negative result. It does not explain what a missing or invalid grant_id does, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and the return format and policy in supporting position; no filler. Slightly telegraphic ('Deny-by-default' stands alone without explaining the consequence, though it is reasonably self-evident).

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 names the two possible return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-parameter policy-check tool it leaves the optional grant_id unexplained and gives no guidance on sequencing relative to the clipping and grant-registration siblings.

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% for both parameters. The description implies what 'source' means but says nothing about 'grant_id' — where it comes from, whether it is optional, or how it changes the gate's decision — so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 states a specific verb and resource: query a rights gate about whether a given source may be clipped. That is clearly distinct from siblings like clipwright_register_grant or clipwright_create_clips, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the grant-registration flow.

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 should be consulted before clipping, reinforced by 'Deny-by-default'. There is no explicit statement of when this check is required versus when clipwright_register_grant should be called first, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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