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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the list is restricted to opt-in programmes where the rights holder granted a licence in the campaign brief, meaning results are a filtered eligibility set rather than all programmes. It does not say what happens when no programmes qualify or what fields each entry carries.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding; the eligibility condition is stated up front rather than buried. The trailing parenthetical explaining the licence source is slightly compressed but still earns its place by defining "legally".

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the list represents but not what an agent receives (programme names, IDs, licence details) or how to handle an empty result. That is a modest but real gap given no output schema exists to fill it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The schema and description are consistent in presenting this as a no-argument listing call.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and a precisely qualified resource ("opt-in clipper programmes Clipwright can legally clip for"), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from clipwright_check_rights by scoping to programmes rather than per-item rights checks, though it never names that sibling.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as clipwright_check_rights, nor any prerequisite or follow-up guidance. The only implied usage is discovering which programmes are eligible before creating clips, which the agent must infer.

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