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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: AND-matching across every word, a 20-result cap, what is deliberately excluded from the index (spoken words), and a routing hint to pass an id to fetch. 'Free and read only' partly restates annotations, which keeps this just short of 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-loaded with the trigger and tightly segmented into search scope, return shape, and a 'Not for:' exclusion list; nearly every clause earns its place. It is a single dense run-on paragraph rather than clearly separated lines, which costs a little scannability.

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 one-parameter search tool with a full safety annotation set and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: trigger, matching rule, indexed fields, result limit, and the follow-up call. No material gap remains.

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% (query is an undecorated string), so the description must carry the load and does: 1-512 character bound, multi-word AND semantics, and example queries that show the expected input shape. That is meaning the schema alone cannot supply.

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 ('find a video or clip ... by a word in its name') and immediately bounds the search surface to project names and Library clip titles/details. It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_moments, list_projects, list_clips, list_library and web search, so an agent can route 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 triggering utterances ('find my tournament stream', 'which clip is called the giveaway') plus an explicit 'Not for:' block that names the alternative tool for each excluded case. When-to-use, when-not-to-use and alternatives are all present.

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