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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by saying 'list'. The description adds the scope (specific compel) and the 'all' qualifier but does not disclose return format, pagination, or ordering behavior. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple filtered-list tool with good annotations and a fully documented parameter. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope, but it lacks details about return structure, pagination, or ordering. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficient but not exhaustive, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter compel_id, with a clear description. The tool description's phrase 'for a specific compel' merely reinforces the schema meaning without adding extra syntax, formatting, or behavioral details. Baseline 3 is correct given the schema carries the full param semantics.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'video renderings' and scopes it to a specific compel. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_compels (which lists compels) and get_rendering (which retrieves a single rendering).

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 description implies the use case: when you need all renderings for a particular compel. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'for a specific compel' phrasing provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool.

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