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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds contextual detail about included output fields (citations, media details, publication state), but does not disclose the behavioral nuance that limit is effectively always 1, affecting how pagination works.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded but omits critical parameter information. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters needing explanation.

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?

Given the lack of parameter descriptions and the existence of an output schema, the description still leaves significant gaps about how to use the tool effectively. The output schema covers return values, but input handling is unexplained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. No mention of slug (required identifier), limit (though fixed to 1), or cursor (pagiantion token). The description only covers output, not input semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('list clips') and the resource ('for an episode'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_clip (single clip) and get_episode (episode metadata). However, it implies multiple clips are returned at once, but the limit parameter is fixed to 1, which is a minor inaccuracy.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_clip for a specific clip). No mention of prerequisites or use cases beyond the basic listing function.

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