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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent, explaining exactly what mutates (new clips are appended to the episode's clip set) and that already-found clips are skipped. It further discloses failure modes ('may find fewer than usual, or none... say so plainly') and latency ('takes about a minute; if still searching, call it again with the same focus') — context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the use case, then behavior, return fields, latency, and the precondition in roughly that priority order. Every sentence carries operational information — no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still names the returned fields (number, ref, title, why it fits) at low cost, and covers preconditions, mutation semantics, latency, and the sparse-result case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by clarifying the retry semantics tied to the focus parameter (call again with the same focus to wait) and framing focus as the user's own words. The target_seconds behavior is mostly documented in the schema itself, so this is additive rather than essential.

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?

Names a specific action (searches the episode for moments matching a topic/audience and adds them as clips), a concrete resource (episode clips), and a scope constraint (skips clips already found). The example phrasings 'clips about creativity for artists' make it immediately distinguishable from make_clips and restyle_clip.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants clips from an episode on a particular topic or for a particular audience') and an explicit precondition/exclusion ('Do not use before get_episode reports the episode ready'). It also covers the retry case: call again with the same focus while searching.

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