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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by clarifying that the information is 'code-backed' and 'current,' and by listing the categories of constraints it exposes. This helps an agent understand the nature and freshness of the data 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?

Two sentences carry meaningful content with no filler. The actionable verb and resource scope are front-loaded, followed by a usage cue. Every phrase 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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is read, the use case, and the data categories. It does not describe the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool only reports capabilities, this omission is minor.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies a precise resource: the Evercraft Clip capability boundary. It enumerates distinct facets (rendering limits, platform lanes, commercial truth, authority constraints), making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling plan_clip_job.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when deciding whether Clip fits a social-video production or governed distribution problem.' This gives clear decision-oriented context, though it does not explicitly name plan_clip_job as an alternative or describe when not to use this tool.

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