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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently implies a read-only operation by saying 'List available', and it explains the nature of the items (clips prepended to shorts). It adds context about the purpose of the output, though it does not detail pagination behavior or response format, which are partially covered by the schema.

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 description is exactly two sentences in a conventional structure: the first states the purpose and defines the resource, and the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource, explains what a meme hook is, and tells the agent how to use the result (the exact memeHookName when creating shorts). It omits a detailed return structure, but given the schema covers pagination parameters and the tool is straightforward, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (page and limit) with defaults and constraints, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds some value by mentioning 'memeHookName' as the key output field to use, but it does not directly provide additional semantics for the input parameters, placing it at the baseline 3.

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' and the resource 'available meme hook clips', and adds a defining parenthetical '2-5 second attention grabbers prepended to shorts' that distinguishes meme hooks from other listable resources like game videos or music. This differentiates the tool from sibling tools that also list content.

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?

The description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but it provides a clear usage context: 'Use the exact memeHookName when creating shorts' implies the tool is intended to be used before create_short to fetch valid hook names. This gives the agent a clear scenario for when to invoke this tool, though it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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