Where an intro/outro is used

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the burden, and the description goes further by describing the exact return shape (nested projects/clips with slots and via) and explaining what 'via' means. That is real added context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about permissions or result limits.

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-loads the purpose, then the return shape, then the actionable cue. Mostly tight, though the inline JSON-ish return shape and the 'via saying whether through the project or the clip's own choice' clause are a little dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return structure and the meaning of 'via', and it covers the sole parameter and usage context. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around result scale.

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% and the single parameter is documented there (asset id, from list_bumpers), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 purpose: it returns 'the projects and clips that use a library item,' which is a clear verb+resource and distinctive from siblings like list_bumpers or remove_bumper. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the impact-analysis intent is unambiguous.

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?

The closing phrase 'Check before removing one' gives a concrete when-to-use tied to the removal workflow (remove_bumper). It conveys the context clearly but does not name the alternative tool or state exclusions explicitly.

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