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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so the description goes further: it discloses that video links expire after 5 minutes and must be re-fetched, describes the exact rendered content, and adds a cost signal ("Free") that the annotations do not express. It also restates default scoping behavior (newest `limit` clips when neither selector is given).

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 the outcome, then params, caveat, exclusions, and cost — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The middle sentence runs long by chaining all three parameters together, which slightly hurts scanability, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still tells the agent what the user will see and the one perishable property (5-minute links). For a 3-optional-param display tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all meaning, and it does: job_id is sourced from find_clips output, clip_ids selects specific clips, and limit is bounded (1-10) with a stated default of 6. The interaction between the parameters and the fallback case is spelled out explicitly.

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 ("watch their clips right in the chat") and immediately describes the concrete artifact produced: a gallery with a video player, title, length, score, why-it-was-picked, plus edit/draft buttons. It also names the siblings it is not (list_clips, get_download_link, preview_frame), so an agent can differentiate without inspecting 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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ("show me my clips", "let me watch them") plus a sequencing rule: use after find_clips finishes and pass its job_id. The "Not for:" clause enumerates three alternatives with the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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