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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: the status lifecycle (queued → analyzing → ready | failed | expired), the 7-day retention window (expiresAt), and that the operation is free. These are meaningful operational traits beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose, then the return shape, then the workflow hand-off and retention/cost notes. Dense and waste-free with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully describes the return payload (candidate id/title/score range/timecodes/reason) and the terminal states, which is exactly the burden the missing output schema places on it. An agent has everything needed to poll and interpret results.

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 a single documented plan_id, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail about plan_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an AI Clipper plan') and immediately enumerates what it returns (status, progress, candidates). It distinguishes itself from workflow neighbors by naming the next step (generate_clips) and by describing the status state machine, so an agent can place it in the pipeline without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the downstream step ('Pass the chosen candidate ids to generate_clips'), and the schema ties plan_id to start_clipper, effectively defining when this tool is used. It lacks an explicit 'do not call before start_clipper' exclusion, but the surrounding context is unambiguous.

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