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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are engagement-ranked, clip_id switches to a detail mode returning description, social-hook intro, speaker and audio URL, and include=['transcript'] attaches dialogue. It doesn't discuss pagination limits or ranking caveats, keeping it short of a 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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool does, then detail mode, then sibling routing. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical example is illustrative rather than padding. Slightly heavy on nested parentheticals, which is the only thing keeping it from 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears some burden of return-value explanation, and it delivers for the clip_id detail path while implying list rows carry episode slugs. Pagination via cursor and limit is left entirely to the schema, and the listing row shape is never described, leaving a small gap for a 10-parameter tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that `speaker` takes a person slug and returns only clips of that person talking ('an insightful Sam Altman clip'), and that clip_id toggles a different response shape rather than filtering a list. Those are interpretive details the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 ('Browse AI-extracted highlight clips across the catalog') plus the ranking dimension ('ranked by engagement potential'), and immediately characterizes the content as 'the shareable moments'. An agent can distinguish this from particle_podcast_search_transcripts or particle_podcast_get_episode without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes between modes and siblings: 'For text-based clip discovery — finding clips about a topic or entity — use particle_podcast_search_transcripts instead' and notes episode slugs 'feed particle_podcast_get_episode'. The single-clip detail path (pass clip_id) is also called out with its own trigger condition.

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