Clip

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the operation consumes paid credits, that confirm must be true, and that the read-like POST does not publish to social platforms, explaining the otherwise-confusing readOnlyHint=false. It does not describe rate limits or pagination, but the cost and confirmation context is genuinely additive.

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 purpose, then enumerates return fields and operational caveats. The field list is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema; overall appropriately sized.

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 enumerated return fields (clip id, video_url, view_count, privacy status, category/creator/channel info) usefully describe the response, and the credit/confirm caveats cover operational needs. Adequate for a single-URL fetch 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms confirm=true semantics and account credential selection but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (fetches detailed data for a Kick clip by URL) and enumerates the returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kick_clip_transcript. An agent can identify exactly what it does without opening the 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?

It discloses that the call consumes paid API credits and requires confirm=true, which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over the sibling kick_clip_transcript or other clip tools. Usage is implied rather than compared against alternatives.

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