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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that this is a pre-licensing eligibility check and that AI training requires a separate written agreement (in the schema). It doesn't describe what happens when a clip is ineligible or whether it returns a simple boolean vs. detailed rights information, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose and key use cases with zero waste. 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?

For a read-only, idempotent check tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what the response looks like (e.g., eligible/not eligible) or what happens for ineligible clips, but the annotations and schema cover the essential safety and parameter context.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the intended-use examples (commercial, editorial, broadcast) which align with the schema's enum-like list, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear resource ('a clip') and a clear condition ('eligible for a given intended use'), and it names example use cases (commercial, editorial, broadcast) that distinguish it from siblings like license_clip or get_clip_details. It clearly states the tool's role in the licensing workflow.

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 when to use this tool: before licensing, to verify eligibility for a specific intended use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'before licensing' and the sibling list (license_clip, get_clip_details) makes the usage context clear. It could be stronger with an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement.

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