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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: 'free', ordering is newest-first because the API provides no creation dates, and next_offset is null on the last page. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only listing the disclosed traits are solid.

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 core action and scope, then usage, then pagination semantics, then return shape. The final paragraph enumerating return fields is largely redundant with the output schema, which costs a point, but the rest is dense and waste-free.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, filtering semantics, pagination edge case, and ordering rationale. With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values yet does so anyway; nothing an agent needs to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains created_via=api restricts to API-key-created jobs (the schema says 'this server or scripts'), documents limit's 1-50 range with default, and clarifies that next_offset from a page feeds offset. This is real added value over the field descriptions.

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 ('Lists the user's clip jobs'), adds scope ('newest first, including jobs started on the MnogoReels website'), and explicitly names the sibling it differs from ('Use get_clip_job for the clips of one job'). An agent can distinguish it from the many other clip-related siblings without opening a 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 three concrete use cases ('find a job_id, see what is still processing, or pick recent results to review') and routes to the alternative tool (get_clip_job) for a different need. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are present.

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