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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive semantics, and the description still adds useful behavior: page size of up to 50, cursor chaining via next_cursor, the fields returned per item, and a privacy guarantee that private file paths are never returned. It also notes the operation is free, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it speculatively.

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 primary use case, then pagination, then the id contract, then exclusions — a logical order. It is dense rather than padded, though the mixed quoting and long middle sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

Even allowing that an output schema exists, the description covers the pagination contract, the key returned identifier and how it feeds downstream tools, plus the exclusion set. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or decide against it is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameters, and it does: limit is bounded to 1-50 and cursor is explained as the next_cursor value from the prior page. The wording "pass next_cursor as cursor" is slightly indirect since the schema names the field cursor, and the default limit of 20 is not mentioned, but the essential semantics are conveyed.

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 (list long videos already in RipClip) and enumerates what those videos are (Twitch/Kick VODs, podcast episodes, uploads). It also explicitly separates itself from list_clips, list_library and find_moments, so an agent can disambiguate without opening any 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 concrete trigger intents ("what videos do I have", "which stream did I import") and the downstream need case (obtaining a project_id consumed by estimate_hu, find_clips, find_moments, clip_range). A dedicated "Not for:" clause routes the agent to the correct sibling for each adjacent task.

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