Search clips

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries matching and ranking behavior: every word must match, case-insensitive, typo-tolerant, best-first ordering. It also discloses the return envelope (projects max 8, clips max limit, ids/bounds/links, truncated flag) despite no output schema. It stops short of error or rate-limit behavior, keeping it out of top marks.

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 tight sentences with no filler: what it searches, what it returns, and the alternative tool, in that priority order. Every clause earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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, and the description compensates by outlining the result shape including the truncation flag and per-entity caps. Combined with full schema coverage on both parameters and the explicit sibling alternative, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 adds genuine semantics for q: implicit AND across every word, case-insensitive, typo-tolerant matching, and it clarifies that limit caps only the clips portion of the result. That is meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Words to find' example.

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 (Find) applied to specific resources (clips and projects) and names the searched fields (title, hook, caption). An agent can immediately distinguish search_clips from list_projects, the browsing sibling, 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?

Provides a concrete routing rule — 'Use list_projects to browse instead' — which contrasts searching by keyword versus browsing. It is clear context with an explicit alternative, though it doesn't cover edge cases like empty results or when to prefer get_clip over search for a known id.

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