Stockfilm — Authentic Vintage Footage

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

With annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint=true) and external dependencies (openWorldHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the return format ('ordered list of clips with durations') and scope limitations (edit lists/storyboards vs. final video). It does not disclose the non-idempotent nature (idempotentHint=false), which would be helpful given the open-world data source.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste: action statement, return value specification, and use case guidance. Front-loaded with the core operation and appropriately scoped for quick comprehension.

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 output schema, the description effectively compensates by explaining what gets returned ('ordered list of clips with durations'). It clarifies the deliverable type (edit lists/storyboards) which is crucial for an assembly tool. Annotations handle the safety profile, allowing the description to focus on functional scope.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented (e.g., pace values with timing ranges, query examples). The description references 'based on a description' which aligns with the query parameter, but otherwise appropriately relies on the comprehensive schema rather than repeating parameter details.

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 ('Auto-assemble') with clear resources ('timed sequence of vintage clips into a video timeline') and mechanism ('based on a description'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_vintage_footage (assembly vs. search) and license_clip (creative assembly vs. rights management).

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 provides implied usage context ('Great for creating edit lists or storyboards') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_vintage_footage or other siblings. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., for final rendered output).

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

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable business context about what verification entails (eligibility checking) and lists specific use case examples (commercial, editorial, broadcast, etc.) that help an agent understand the domain beyond the structured hints.

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?

Single, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Verify') and includes parenthetical examples without waste. Every word earns its place in conveying eligibility checking, use case scope, and workflow positioning.

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 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and workflow context. Minor gap: does not indicate what the tool returns (boolean eligibility vs. detailed rights object), though this is somewhat mitigated by the verification framing.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions example intended uses which reinforces the schema, but does not add new semantic information or usage guidance beyond what the structured schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full documentation load.

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 specific verb 'Verify' with clear resource 'clip...eligible for a given intended use' and scope (commercial, editorial, broadcast, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'license_clip' by positioning this as a pre-licensing eligibility check rather than the licensing action itself.

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 phrase 'before licensing' provides clear temporal sequencing guidance, implying this should be used as a prerequisite to licensing. However, it does not explicitly name 'license_clip' as the alternative tool for the actual licensing action, relying on implication rather than explicit cross-reference.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds crucial behavioral context not in annotations: the similarity is specifically 'visual' (distinguishing from metadata matching) and the source is the 'Stockfilm archive'. It also notes that it 'Returns clips', providing output intent despite no output 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first establishes the action and input requirement; the second clarifies the return value and content scope. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 annotations cover safety profiles and the schema has complete parameter coverage, the description provides sufficient context about the domain (Stockfilm) and similarity type (visual). It acknowledges the return of clips despite lacking an output schema, though it could note pagination or result ordering behavior.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'clip ID' which aligns with the required parameter, but does not add semantic meaning, validation rules, or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool finds 'visually similar vintage clips' using a 'clip ID' from the 'Stockfilm archive'. The requirement of a clip ID and the visual similarity criterion effectively distinguish it from the sibling search_vintage_footage (likely keyword-based) and get_clip_details (single clip retrieval).

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 implies the prerequisite of having a clip ID ('by providing a clip ID'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_vintage_footage or other alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or workflow context.

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

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the specific data fields returned (price, resolution, URLs, etc.), compensating for the missing output schema. Does not mention caching or rate limiting behavior.

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?

Single sentence of 18 words with zero waste. Front-loaded with verb 'Get' and immediately specifies the resource and return value structure. Every word earns its place.

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?

Appropriately complete for a simple single-parameter lookup tool. Compensates for missing output schema by listing returned fields in description. Annotations provide safety context. Minor gap: no mention of error cases (e.g., invalid clip_id).

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 has 100% description coverage for the single clip_id parameter ('The clip ID from search results'). Description text provides no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'Stockfilm clip details' + scope 'specific' clearly distinguishes from sibling search_vintage_footage. Listing returned fields (description, year, location, price, etc.) clarifies the information retrieval nature versus licensing or editing siblings.

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?

Provides implied usage context through 'specific clip' phrasing, suggesting use when a clip_id is already known. However, lacks explicit guidance on workflow sequence (e.g., 'use after search_vintage_footage') or comparisons to check_clip_rights for rights-specific queries.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: $10 USD cost, USDC currency on Solana/Base chains, license terms (royalty-free/worldwide/perpetual), and x402 payment mechanism. Annotations cover idempotency/open-world; description covers commercial terms.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero waste: purpose → cost/return → license terms → completion instructions. Appropriately sized for a payment-initiation tool.

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 single-parameter licensing tool, covers essential commercial context (cost, currency, license scope) and technical integration (x402). Missing only error-handling or pre-verification recommendations given check_clip_rights exists.

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 coverage is 100% and clip_id is self-explanatory in schema. Description mentions 'clip' generally but doesn't add parameter-specific semantics (format, validation) beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Clear specific verb ('License') + resource ('vintage clip from Stockfilm'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling check_clip_rights (which verifies rights without purchasing) and get_clip_details (metadata retrieval).

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?

Explains the return value (x402 endpoint URL) and subsequent steps ('To complete payment, use an x402-compatible agent framework'), implying the workflow. Lacks explicit comparison naming siblings like check_clip_rights as the pre-purchase alternative.

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

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

Strong value-add beyond annotations: discloses return structure (metadata, pricing, thumbnails, licensing info), archive size (217,000+), date range constraints (1930s-1980s), and content authenticity guarantees (real film, no AI). Annotations only cover safety/idempotency, not these behavioral characteristics.

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 distinct sentences each earning their place: (1) scope/size, (2) return format, (3) content authenticity. No redundancy with structured fields. Efficient front-loading of key constraints (date range, archive size).

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?

Highly complete for a search tool: describes what is searched, what is returned (compensating for lack of output schema), and content provenance. Annotations cover safety profile. Minor gap: no mention of pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description does not add parameter-specific guidance (e.g., no discussion of year_from/to range interaction or location format), but schema adequately documents all 5 parameters including the query syntax hint.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Search Stockfilm's archive' (verb+resource), '217,000+ authentic vintage home movie clips from the 1930s-1980s' (scope), and '8mm/Super 8 film' distinguishes content type from potential generic footage tools. Clearly defines the domain.

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?

Implies usage through return value description ('Returns clips with metadata, pricing...') suggesting this is for discovery/browsing, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_clip_details (retrieve specific) or license_clip (acquire rights). No explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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