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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive/ closed-world, and the description still adds real value on top: it labels the tool 'Free and read only' and, critically, warns that the 0-1 score is a relative ranking and not a view forecast, which prevents a downstream misrepresentation. It also enumerates what each clip's result contains, so the agent knows the shape of the response.

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-loaded with the trigger phrases before the mechanics, and every clause (params, per-clip payload, score caveat, exclusions, cost) is load-bearing. It is dense but long, and the parenthetical transcript/seconds annotations add bulk that could be tightened.

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, closed-world read tool with an output schema and explicit annotations, nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing. Return-value detail is arguably redundant given the output schema, but it reinforces the score caveat, which is the one thing an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: clip_ids is sourced ('from list_clips'), bounded ('up to 20'), and job_id is scoped ('of a finished clip job'). It stops short of stating that the two are optional or how they combine/disambiguate when both or neither are supplied.

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 a concrete verb+resource framing ('use this when the user wants to know which clip to post first or why a clip was picked') and quotes the exact user phrasings it answers. It is immediately distinguishable from neighbours like list_clips, show_clips and why_it_worked, which are named explicitly.

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?

Contains both a positive trigger set ('which clip should I post first', 'why did you pick this one', 'rank my clips') and an explicit 'Not for:' section that routes the agent to list_clips, show_clips, get_post_stats and why_it_worked. This is about as complete a when/when-not/alternatives statement as a definition can carry.

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