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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true, so the added details carry real weight: no cost, results are aspect-aware for the project, capped at 12 candidates, and candidates must be forwarded unmodified. It does not explain what 'aspect-aware' derives from or whether results are cached/ranked, keeping it below 5.

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 cost and purpose, then uses compact Args/Returns blocks with no filler sentences. The telegraphic 'project_id: project.' is under-specified rather than padded, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return envelope and candidate count, the cost, and the required downstream step. Only the meaning of the q match and the source of aspect-awareness are left implicit.

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 50%: project_id is documented in the schema as coming from studio_list_projects, and the description only restates it as 'project.', adding nothing. The q line ('at least 2 letters') restates the schema's minLength=2 rather than clarifying matching behavior (title vs tags vs filename).

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 ('Search stock clips'), scopes it to a project, and adds the aspect-aware qualifier. The explicit handoff sentence naming studio_bind_stock separates it cleanly from that sibling without needing either 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?

Gives clear context (search for a project, then pass exactly one candidate untweaked to studio_bind_stock) and flags that the call is free, which affects willingness to call it. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative search tool is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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