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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the user is not charged, no license is issued, and payment is not processed. The 4K masters vs. 144p x402 detail provides additional product context without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the core function, adding product context, advising pre-purchase review, and clarifying non-action. The 4K/144p detail is slightly peripheral to invoking the tool, but the description remains tight and front-loaded.

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 low complexity, complete schema for the single parameter, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral boundaries. It does not specify the exact return shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap.

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 single parameter clip_id is already fully described in the schema as 'The clip ID to license,' so schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'eligible clips' but does not add substantial meaning about the parameter's format or validation requirements beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get licensing options for a clip.' It also clarifies the tool does not issue a license or process payment, which helps define its scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like check_clip_rights, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 clearly frames this as a no-charge, no-commitment lookup and tells the user to review availability, exact price, and terms on the clip page before purchase. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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