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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the source is public lidar, the lot line is rendered on the ground, and the deliverable is an MP4. It does not disclose generation latency, cost, or async delivery, which matters for a video-rendering tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opening with "Use this when" — the trigger condition comes first and every clause (format, scope, key, source) carries information. Zero waste.

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?

Purpose, input key, data source, and output format are all covered, and annotations handle the safety profile. With no output schema, the one unresolved point is how the MP4 is delivered (URL, file, job id), which the description leaves 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 100% with clear examples for both tmk and address, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces TMK as the lookup key but never mentions that an address is an accepted alternative, adding only marginal value.

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 names a specific verb+resource: producing a 'short 3D video (MP4) of one Hawaiʻi lot by TMK' from public lidar. This clearly disambiguates the otherwise opaque name 'get_clip' from data-retrieval siblings like get_parcel and get_listing_facts, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

"Use this when someone wants a short 3D video (MP4) of one Hawaiʻi lot" gives a concrete triggering intent. It omits any when-not guidance or alternative routing (e.g., use get_parcel for facts only), so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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