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

Annotations already declare read only, idempotent and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a 50-item page cap, cursor-based pagination, and the fact that items past their retention date are silently excluded from results. It also tells the agent which downstream tools accept the returned ids, which materially affects follow-up planning.

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?

The most important routing signal (user intent plus examples) is front-loaded, then pagination/return shape, then exclusions — a sensible order. It is dense and long for a three-parameter list tool, and the id-usable-with tool enumeration is verbose, though each clause carries real routing value.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: triggers, exclusions, pagination protocol, value set for kind, and retention caveat. Return-value explanation is technically redundant given the output schema but not harmful.

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% and no parameter has an enum, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it names the three values for kind including the default, states the limit bounds (1-50), and explains that next_cursor is passed back as cursor. The only gap is the actual default limit of 20, which is never mentioned and sits in tension with 'up to 50 per page'.

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 specific user-intent trigger and concrete verb/resource framing ('see their finished clips or saved photos, or needs a clip_id'), backed by four example utterances. It also distinguishes the resource from look-alike siblings by name (list_projects, show_clips, explain_clips), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers with quoted user phrasings plus an explicit 'Not for' list mapping each alternative scenario to a named sibling tool. The condition-selection logic is fully spelled out rather than inferred.

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